Appeal 3337795

Appeal A and Appeal B are refused.

The main issues are the effects of the proposals on the listed building and conservation area; and on the risk from flooding.

[site address] Conservation Area (CA) covers a large area and is characterised by a wealth of historic buildings around a mediaeval street pattern. [address] is a narrow street near the heart of the CA. It is lined by mostly two-storey developments, with gaps, of very mixed ages and styles. [site address] stands at the end of the public thoroughfare with its garden facing a private section of road beyond the house. Listed at [name], I saw that it is a rare survivor of a Georgian townhouse with all its key features. It has recently had a conservatory added to the garden side.

The proposed [name] would be a first floor extension above a small shed on the far side of the garden, opposite the conservatory. The existing shed is set back from the Lane behind a part two storey structure, which slopes at a low pitch down to a single storey to the rear. The shed backs onto another single storey structure, beyond the site boundary, between the appeal site and the river, and is adjacent to a much taller building behind the garden. Appeal Decisions APP/D1265/D/3337795, APP/D1265/Y/24/3339801

The proposal would stand above the existing shed, projecting slightly to the front, and be faced in timber boarding. It would have a plain tiled roof and a small Juliet balcony facing the garden. Overall, I find that the proposed building would have the appearance of a further garden shed, one that would be raised up by one floor. Although modest, I find that the position of a rather utilitarian structure at first floor level, opposite such a fine house and rising abruptly from the structure in front, would jar and appear out of place, even in such a varied context. It would also grate when seen opposite the well-mannered and carefully considered conservatory. As it would be a storey higher than the existing shed, I judge that it could also be glimpsed from some angles along [address] in front and from the car park behind.

To my mind, given the proposed materials, height and position, the garden room would harm the contribution that the setting of the listed building makes to the significance I have set out. It would distract from an enjoyment of the proportions of the house from [address] and in views from the car park on the other side of the River. Despite the variety of buildings along [address], it would also detract from the character and appearance of the conservation area.

The proposal would conflict with Policies HE1 and HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan 2014 which aim to protect and enhance the significance of all heritage assets and their settings; and to achieve high quality development. For similar reasons, and with regard to the listed building consent appeal in particular, it would conflict with relevant policy in Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

The Environment Agency (EA) flood map shows the site in Zone 2. If it is in Zone 1, then a sequential test is not required. The Appellant has explained the town’s flood defences and calculated the predicted water levels against these, including climate change, and explained why he considers that the site should be transposed into Zone 1. Following a revised Flood Risk Assessment (FRA), the EA repeated its objection with a new concern that the FRA did not take account of climate change. By my reading, the revised FRA makes 5 references to climate change, as well as addressing the concerns with the original FRA.

There are no proposed alterations to the ground floor and so there should be no interference with potential flood waters. There would be a theoretical risk to the safety of occupants at first floor, but there would be no likely increase in the number of occupants of the house and garden overall. In the absence of more specific concerns, I consider that the FRA is proportionate to the degree of risk and adequate to show that any occupants would be at no greater risk from potential flooding. I therefore find no conflict with Local Plan Policy ME6 ‘[name], Mitigation and Defence’, Section 14 of the NPPF, or paragraphs 20 to 21 of planning practice guidance on [name] and [name]. I note that the Appellant is aware that a [name] would be required in any event.

Notwithstanding the lack of increased risk from flooding, I conclude that both appeals should be refused.