Appeal 3347915

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon: • The character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding locality, with special attention to the Mickleton Conservation Area (CA); and • The living conditions of [address], with particular regard to privacy.

Whilst the appeal documents do not contain an appraisal of the significance of the CA, from my own observations the Conservation Area appears to encapsulate much of the historic core of the village which appears to extend along [site address] , [address] and [address]. The curved streets contain a number of historic buildings, many listed that date from the seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. There is a clear hierarchy and status with the buildings, with the more functionally designed box timber framed thatched buildings with no setback from the street to the larger Cotswold stone buildings which have a higher status in their design and positioning with their setback from the street with the plots aligned with large stone boundary walls that emphasise status. These elements together with the winding nature of the [site address] along with the street trees in front gardens, boundary hedging, the use of traditional materials emphasise a picturesque village experience that reinforces some of the positive qualities within the locality that reinforce local character and distinctiveness.

Whilst most of the main buildings and development is located fronting the road edge, to the rear of dwellings there is evidence of smaller scale development such as outbuildings and small cul-de-sacs that have been created to provide access to Appeal Decision: APP/F1610/D/24/3347915 new buildings to the rear which tend to be of a lower scale and hierarchy compared to that found along the main streets.

The appeal site displays a number of positive qualities which are experienced within the locality, and is one of the newer built developments which consist of a development of [address] and [site address] , both of which are two storey buildings and smaller garage to the rear access from a cul-de-sac. I disagree with the [name] of Case (SoC) which states that the appeal site and [address] are a ‘replication of a traditional manor type property’ as to me, the buildings have more of an appearance of trying to emulate barn style and workers cottage type developments to the rear which would appear to follow a lower hierarchy than the buildings found along the street. The design and layout of the two dwellings including the appeal site is evidence of this with its functional type of design, small dormer windows which evidence that it is at a higher hierarchy than the small single storey functional garage within its forecourt. Whilst the appeal building is constructed in quality materials, it has a neutral contribution to the character and appearance of the CA.

Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (PLBCA), in respect of development affecting conservation areas, states that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and/or appearance of the area. In undertaking extensions and alterations to existing buildings, the Cotswold District Local Plan (LP) Policy EN2 contains a number of design principles which together with [name] of the policy seeks that development provides a strong sense of place and raise the quality of design with considerations around landscape, urban form, character, massing, scale, bulk, height, context amongst others. [name] EN10 and EN11 are specifically related to the historic environment and designated heritage assets and seeks to ensure development conserves or enhances heritage assets such as Conservation Areas, and seeks a number of considerations to preserve and enhance the significance of

Given the discussion around hierarchy and status of buildings within this locality, the garage whilst also part of the modern development, is at the lowest end of the hierarchy of the buildings. The building is functional in design and does not seek to compete with or dominate surrounding buildings in its current form. Whilst confined to the existing roof plane, the proposed dormer window extension is very wide and tall and has an appearance of a roof extension rather than what could be described as small dormer windows which in a traditional sense were designed to be small, proportionate to the roof and elevate the status of a building. I appreciate the explanation as to the design rationale behind the design which seeks to provide additional and functional accommodation, however the result is unsuccessful and appears to have been developed in isolation to the existing and surrounding built form. The proposal would be disproportionately bulky and would dominate the form and appearance of the roof form of the garage, and would upgrade the status of the building which would have an inauthentic appearance within this CA.

[name] appreciate that the dormer window does not exceed 50% of the roof plane, this is not a black and white determinant to acceptability, with one having to take account of the existing design, context, hierarchy and proportions into account as per the policy and associated [name]. The comments in the [name] around what is appropriate in terms of complying with the General Appeal Decision: APP/F1610/D/24/3347915 Permitted Development Order (GPDO) are not relevant as to what would be acceptable. Given the designation within a CA this requires further bespoke and special considerations which are not always easy to quantify and this is why acceptable percentage increases or volume increases are inappropriate and that increases below what is specified in the GPDO may still be inappropriate.

I also appreciate comments that there is evidence of other roof extensions and dormer windows within the CA as shown in the [name]. However neither of these examples replicate the scale or massing of the proposed dormer roof extension or contain a similar relationship where the dormer is located on a smaller subservient detached building. Taking this into account, the other examples specified do not provide additional justification that the proposal would be appropriate.

I also appreciate comments that the dormer would be to the rear of the [site address] and not readily visible within the public realm; however the duty under Section 72, (or considerations under [name] ENV2, ENV10, ENV11) is not limited to what can be seen from a public vantage point, and that just because the dormer might not be highly visible to the public realm, does not mean that harm cannot occur.

Taking the above into account and in conclusion of this matter the proposal due to its form, bulk, massing and change in hierarchy would not be an appropriate architectural approach and the scheme would therefore be contrary to [name] ENV2, ENV10 and ENV11 as described previously. It is clear to me that the proposed dormer would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the existing building and the greater locality that is important to the significance of the CA thus failing to preserve the character and appearance of the wider CA and the duty under s72 of the PLBCA.

Although serious, the harm to the heritage asset in this case would be ‘less than substantial,’ within the meaning of the term in paragraph 215 of the Framework. Paragraph 213 of the Framework states that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset requires clear and convincing justification. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires that, where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

There are some public benefits, such as the economic benefits from short term employment opportunities from the construction of the proposed scheme and also the increased living space for the existing occupiers which attracts low weight. However, these benefits are not sufficient to outweigh the harm caused to the CA, in which I attach great weight.

I therefore find that the public benefits arising from the proposed development would not outweigh the harm I have identified. The scheme therefore conflicts with the Framework, which directs, at paragraph 212, ‘that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation ... irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to their significance.’

Travelling up the Cul-de-sac of [site address] the appeal site of [site address] is the closest dwelling with the neighbouring [address] situated furthest away with both dwellings being positioned side-on to [site address] with [address] set Appeal Decision: APP/F1610/D/24/3347915 forward a few metres from [site address] . The proposed dormer window would be situated on the front roof plane of the garage building which is positioned to the front of [site address] and facing the forecourt area. As [site address] is positioned a few metres behind the main dwelling of [address], there is a small gap of a few metres wide which allows some limited light to the rear garden of [address]. Given the positioning of the dormer window, the concerns revolve around overlooking opportunities of this small gap to the rear private garden of [address].

The garden of [address] is relatively small and contains an outbuilding to the rear. According to the Council Officer’s report, the dormer would be placed approximately 14 metres from the side boundary wall of [address]. The proposed dormer window would increase the perception of overlooking from the rear garden of [address], however would be limited to more of a glimpse through the gap which would not be readily apparent from the neighbouring occupiers.

I am also aware that conditions could be placed in order to obscure glazing, however a balance needs to be struck between the effect that this causes to the appearance of the building, this being its main façade with opaque glazing providing an inferior appearance.

Taking the above into account, whilst there would be increased perception of overlooking caused by the proposed dormer, it would be limited to the small gap and would not be to the extent that it would cause detrimental harm to the living conditions of [address]. As such, and in conclusion of this matter, the proposal would not be contrary to LP Policy EN2 which seeks that development not cause harm to living conditions of surrounding occupiers.

Section 66 of the PLBCA prescribes a duty upon a decision maker to give special regard to the desirability of preserving the significance of a listed building or its setting. It is noted that the Council did not consider that the proposal impacted the significance of nearby listings from development within their setting. I have no reason to doubt this assessment, and conclude that the proposal would cause neutral harm to the significance of surrounding listings.

[name] have agreed with the Appellant with regards to the matter concerning living conditions, when considered as a whole together with relevant material considerations, this is not enough to outweigh the clear conflict with character and appearance and the duty with regards to the Conservation Area. For these reasons, and having considered all matters raised in evidence and from what I saw during my site visit, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.