Appeal 3311261

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for front, side and rear extensions at [site address] , [site address] , Worksop [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 22/00511/HSE, dated 12 April subject to the conditions below:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 21/HARRIS/103 P2, 21/HARRIS/104 P2, 21/HARRIS/105 P2.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building

I have used the description of development from the appellant’s appeal form and the Council’s decision notice as this more accurately describes the development than that contained on the application form.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area having regard to the setting of [name] and grounds ([name]), Clumber Park registered Park and Garden ([name]) and [address] Farm a non-designated heritage asset.

Worksop college is a grade II listed building forming school buildings constructed in 1895 with later additions from brick with plain tile roofs and ashlar dressings in the [name] style. It has a quadrangle plan with projecting wings. The building is well preserved and its significance, for the purposes of this appeal, is largely derived from its historically and architectural quality as an example of early school buildings.

To the north is a plethora of later buildings, some relatively modern, forming the school complex. However, to the south, east and west, the area is less developed, mostly being open countryside except for to the south where there are sports fields and car parking. Nevertheless, overall, the building has a relatively open setting with the backdrop of Clumber Park seen in the distance.

Clumber Park is a Grade I Historic Park and Garden and forms an early eighteenth-century deer park landscaped in the eighteenth century comprising about 1600 hectares of parkland divided by [name]. It has conifer boundary plantations and heathland and deciduous woodland. The Park contains Hardwick village and a scattering of tenanted cottages. Its significance for the purposes of this appeal is derived from its special historic interest. Although covering a relatively large area it is largely surrounded by open countryside with scattered built form.

[address] Farm is a non-designated heritage asset which is a detached Victorian style farm building constructed of red brick. It has associated modern and old farm buildings. Its significance, for the purposes of this appeal lies in its retained original materials and local historic interest as a farmhouse. It is mostly surrounded by open countryside with a golf course on the opposite side of the road.

In so much as the open countryside makes up the setting of each heritage asset it allows views of them from certain aspects and an appreciation of their significance. In the case of the farmhouse some of the land would have been part of the holding, but there is nothing before me to suggest its extent and there is nothing to suggest the building is still in active use as a farmhouse. The surrounding open countryside therefore contributes to the significance of the heritage assets in a modest way.

The appeal site is located within the open countryside making up the setting of the three heritage assets. It contains a two-storey detached dwelling built in the 1960s/1970s. It is constructed from red brick with a tile roof and upvc windows and a series of catslide roofs to the front. It is set well back from the road presenting as a modern detached house. [address], due to the intervening boundary landscaping and tree lined avenue it is the roofscape that is mostly visible in the landscape. Its modern construction and modest size mean it makes a neutral contribution to the wider countryside.

The proposed extensions would be contained within the ridge height and roof pitches of the existing dwelling. While it would present a larger wider mass of roof, particularly at the front, it would not be significantly wider than the existing dwelling and would be broken up with dormers and a front gable extension.

The garage to the side would add width to the overall built form but would be set down from the main house and attached via a glazed link creating a subservient form which due to the surrounding landscaping would not be overly visible in the wider landscape. The bulk of the extensions are contained on the rear elevation but even here the differing roof heights create interest and ensure the extensions are not bulky or obtrusive. The proposal would use modern materials, but this would reflect the existing materials on site. Therefore, while the proposal would result in a larger modern house, it would sit comfortably within the countryside maintaining its neutral contribution to the surrounding area.

There are existing brick pillars and a gate at the entrance to the site in the approximate position to those proposed. Due to the setback, they are not visible in views along [address] or in association with the heritage assets. The remaining boundary treatment is formed from soft landscaping.

Consequently, I am satisfied that the setting of the heritage assets would be preserved. In any case, I saw at my site visit that visibility between [name] and [address] Farm and the appeal building is very limited due to the intervening planting.

For the reasons above, I conclude that proposal would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area having regard to the setting of [name] and grounds ([name]), Clumber Park registered Park and Garden ([name]) and [address] Farm a non-designated heritage asset. There would therefore be no conflict with policies DM4 and DM8 of the [name] (December 2011) and paragraphs 189, 194, 195, 197, 199, 200, 202, 203 & 206 of the National Planning Policy Framework. These require that development is not detrimental to the significance of heritage assets and preserves or enhances the setting of heritage assets. Also, that the character of the built, historic and natural environment is complemented and enhanced.

A condition requiring the development to be completed in accordance with the approved plans is necessary for certainty. One requiring materials to match those existing is necessary to protect the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons above the appeal should be allowed.