Appeal 3353878

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the setting and significance of nearby heritage assets.

The appeal proposal is for the erection of a three-bay oak framed garage, with two of the bays enclosed and one open fronted. The structure would have a footprint of about 50sqm and a ridge height of 4.5m. The garage would be positioned about 10m from the front elevation of the host dwelling, ‘ [site address] ’, on an area of lawn where the gravel entrance drive widens out to spread across the dwelling’s frontage. About two thirds of the lawned area on this south side of the driveway would remain and the lawn and mature planting including trees on the other side would be unaffected.

There are three heritage assets which the Council considers would be affected by the proposed garage, with two of them designated: [site address] is [name] listed, and the adjacent building to the north, [site address] House, is [name]* listed. In addition, the local park and garden landscape of [site address] is recorded as a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (‘NDHA’) on the [name].

As regards the NDHA, there are already a number of other outbuildings at adjacent properties, including a brick and pantile garage at [site address] House; a three bay timber and pantile outbuilding at [address]; a similar outbuilding in front of [name], and sheds in front of [name]. And because of these changes I consider that it is difficult for the Council to convincingly argue that the addition of the garage, to which there is no objection to its design and external materials, would comprise a noticeably harmful change to the landscape of the NDHA.

I also consider that the effect on [site address] House would be less than the Council asserts because mature trees and shrubs are already near the appeal site and would continue to restrict any clear line of sight between the House and the proposed garage.

On the other hand, the front elevation of [site address] and the appreciation of its visual and historic qualities is undoubtedly enhanced by the open aspect of the gravel drive, the high standard of landscaping to either side and the absence of clutter that further built form in this area would represent. The proposed garage would be in an exposed position on the south side of the drive. And in the absence of any mitigation by mature hedges, shrubs and trees it would have an obtrusive presence in the aspect from the entrance to the grounds of [site address] and the lower part of the driveway.

I have had regard to the grounds of appeal which provide a detailed and cogent argument in favour of the proposed garage. In particular I have noted from the planning history of the locality that the Council’s refusal is ostensibly inconsistent with the 2019 permission at [name] – ostensibly because although the sites are adjacent to one another there are still material differences. And although the arguments are finely balanced, it is necessary in this case to assess the particular impact of development on the same site as the [name] heritage asset and directly in front of it at the aforementioned modest distance of about 10m.

In these circumstances, whilst on balance the appeal scheme would be acceptable as regards two of the three heritage assets referred to in the refusal, I am unable to reach this conclusion on the third, [site address] itself, the setting of which would be adversely affected thereby causing harm to its significance. This would be in harmful conflict with [name] 9, 13 & 14 of the Newark & [name] 2019; Policies DM5, DM6 & DM9 of the Council’s Allocations & Development Management DPD 2013, and Section 16: Conserving and Enhancing the [name] of the National Planning Policy Framework revised December 2024 (‘the Framework’).

The harm caused would be ‘less than substantial’ to the significance of [site address] as a designated heritage asset, as referred to in paragraph 213 of the Framework and pursuant to paragraph 215 there are no public benefits of the proposal that would outweigh the harm caused.

For these reasons and having had regard to all other matters raised the appeal is dismissed.