Appeal 3338227

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the pair of semi-detached dwellings Nos 7 & [address], and whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Southwell Conservation Area.

The appeal site relates to a semi-detached dwelling, located on the north-eastern side of [address], in the Southwell Conservation Area (SCA). The character of the SCA along this part of [address] is largely defined by a mix of detached and semi-detached dwellings of various ages and scale.

The appellants’ dwelling and its pair, No [address], are of a traditional architectural form, and feature two-storey rear outriggers, which are similar in scale and overall appearance. Pitched roofs are also part of the traditional style of architecture that characterises the appeal site and the surrounding properties. The consistency in terms of the scale of the rear outriggers and the pitched roofs are features which contribute positively to the character and appearance of the SCA.

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. In this respect national policy on heritage assets, which includes conservation areas, is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). At paragraph 196, it sets out matters which should be taken into account, including sustaining and enhancing the significance of the heritage asset and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

The development plan includes Core Policy 14 in the [name] 2019 (CS) and policy DM9 in the Allocations and Development Management Development Plan Document 2013 (DPD) which reflect the statutory duty.

The proposed extension would add an additional storey to the rear outrigger by increasing its height and mass. The additional bulk would disrupt the symmetry of the pair of rear outriggers of Nos 7 & [address], which would erode the character and appearance of the dwellings by reason of its proportions.

Additional massing is also proposed at the roof level, in the form of a large flat-roofed rear dormer. Whilst the dormer would be set down from the main ridge, up from the eaves, and set in from the sides, it would still occupy a significant proportion of the roof. Accordingly, the dormer would represent a top heavy, dominant feature, which would appear discordant when viewed against the pitched roofs that are the predominant form of development within the vicinity of the appeal site.

I recognise that both elements of the proposal would match the materials of the host dwelling, although this would not overcome the adverse impact that would arise from the proposal’s overall height, bulk, and the flat roof of the dormer.

The development would be contained to the rear of dwelling, and would not be visible from [address]. However, the proposal would be visible from several of the neighbouring dwellings. [address] is outside the SCA boundaries, the gaps between the buildings located on [address] allow views towards the SCA, including the rear of the appeal dwelling. Consequently, the proposal would add harmful additions to the host dwelling, and I am satisfied that the limited viewpoints from public areas do not reduce the adverse impact of the development.

I find that the appeal scheme would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the SCA. The Framework states that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets, regardless of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial or less than substantial harm. Given the proposal would affect only part of the SCA, the harm to the significance of the heritage asset would be less than substantial. In such cases, harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal in accordance with paragraph 208 of the Framework.

I note and acknowledge that the development would be beneficial for the appellants’ family, as it would enlarge the living space. However, this is a private benefit and no public benefits have been advanced that would outweigh the harm to the Conservation Area. The proposed development would therefore conflict with the aims and objectives of the Framework which seek to sustain and enhance the significance of heritage assets.

Accordingly, the proposal would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the pair of dwellings Nos 7 & [address]. It would also fail 2 to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the SCA and as such would not meet the statutory requirements of the Act. I also find the proposal to be contrary to [name] 9 and 14 of the CS, Policies DM5 and DM9 of the DPD, the objectives of the Southwell Neighbourhood Plan 2016 and those of the Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document, which collectively state that, amongst other matters, developments should achieve appropriate form and scale to their context, complementing the existing built environment.

I note that there were no objections from Southwell Town Council. However, this is a neutral matter rather than one that carries positive weight in support of the development.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s recommendation and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.