Appeal 3315021

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of the proposed development appearing on the Council’s decision notice differs from that appearing on the application form however, the appellant has stated the description has not changed. As that description is repeated on the appeal form I have used that description.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area and: • whether [site address] is a non-designated heritage asset and if so, the effect of the proposal upon the significance of that asset.

[site address] is a modestly proportioned stone-built cottage in a prominent hillside position above the village of Yatton which is around 500m to the west of the site. The proposed accommodation would be embedded into the sloping hillside topography providing a south-westerly prospect with a ‘green’ roof and a photovoltaic array together with a parking structure for up to 5 vehicles.

Overall the proposal seeks to minimise visual impact although this can only be partly effective due to the openness of the hillside against which the development would be viewed. The single storey, single aspect, design would incorporate an overhanging roof set on columns and by virtue of the design approach, the appellant suggests that views of the proposal would be limited in close views due to its relationship with public footpaths, and present only in distant views. Whilst the effect of recessing the main external wall in this way would be to potentially darken the external wall surfaces in longer views of the site, including expanses of glass, my observations lead me to conclude that the very large, albeit partially concealed, architectural form of what is proposed would be, due to its width and scale, prominently apparent as a hard-edged built insertion into the softly contoured landscape setting of [site address] . This prominence, even at distance, would be underlined at night, in an area of otherwise dark sky, by the illumination associated with residential occupation.

The Ayemestry Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011-2031 ([name]) explains that the area it addresses is of high landscape value derived from its underlying geology, referring also to tranquillity as well as high scenic qualities. Policy AYEnv7 of the [name] requires identified views to be protected and at (a) specifies views to and from [address] and [name]. The related images at [4] both include [site address] and any reading of this policy would indicate the potential for policy conflict, which my observations confirm. As my reasoning explains, I consider there to be a clear conflict with this important policy of the [name] that should attract significant weight.

The Council refer to [site address] as having some heritage interest derived from mention in the 1934 Royal Commission on [name] (RCHM). No original documentation is provided by the Council but this position is not disputed by the appellant. Even in a subsequently altered condition a building which originates prior to 17141 has a degree of significance arising from its survival into modern times as, in this case, an isolated rural dwelling associated with a historic farmstead. Although there is no clear suggestion by either party as to the asset’s significance beyond that implied by its inclusion in the RCHM, I consider that [site address] is a heritage asset as defined in the Glossary to the National Planning Policy Framework.

Policy AYEnv3 of the [name] requires the significance of heritage assets and their settings to be conserved and enhanced. The appellant’s submitted Design and [name] refers to a ‘key design requirement’ that the original dwelling should remain the dominant feature on the site. However it is far from clear what is meant by this since the scale of the proposed accommodation is vast compared to what is currently found and (as I have previously indicated) would be widely apparent.

My observations confirm that the extensive accommodation proposed would dominate the setting of the existing cottage in a spatial and visual sense such that it would lose its significance as a freestanding remnant of historic land use. The original building would have the appearance and character of an annex subservient to (what would in practice be) the main living accommodation of the resultant dwelling. I have nothing before me that addresses the requirement of policy AYEnv3 at (f), nevertheless it is apparent that the significance of [site address] would be substantially diminished by its incorporation into what is proposed, and the proposal therefore conflicts with 1 According to the Council by reference to the RCHM Policy AYEnv3 of the NDP; which conflict, I consider, should also attract significant weight.