Appeal 3358931

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Erection of [name] within the grounds of [site address] , [site address] , [site address] , [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/24/00554/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with plan nos: [name] Plans and Elevations 1305.SC.23.003 Issue D dated March 2023, Planning Application Estate Office & Garage Proposed Site Plan 1305.SC.004 Issue D dated March 2023.

No development above ground level shall take place until named types or samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the garage hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details / samples.

An application for an award of costs was made by [name] against North Northamptonshire Council. This is subject to a separate decision.

Amended plans were submitted to the Council during the determination of the application and these are the plans I have considered the appeal against. As the amended plans included the removal of the first floor and “Private Estate Office Building” as was stated on the application form and some of the plans, I have amended the description of development to reflect this. The parties were consulted on this change.

The main issues are:

The effect of the proposed development on the setting of nearby heritage assets, and

The effect of the proposed development on nearby trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, requires the decision maker, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest. Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

The appeal site comprises a portion of land that falls within the grounds of the [name] listed [site address] . It is also set within the context of the substantial boundary walls which surround the Manor and these are also listed [name] in their own right. A number of other listed buildings are also within proximity to the site including [name] however due to the distances to these other buildings, intervening screening, including the listed walls, and landscaping, there would be no visual effect upon these.

The Council’s reason for refusal only explicitly raised concerns in relation to the effect on the setting of [site address] , nevertheless the decision notice referred to heritage assets (plural) and given the proximity of the site to the listed walls, I have also considered the effect on the setting of these.

[site address] is a grand 17th century, two-storey plus attic space, limestone building under a slate roof. Its principal elevation addresses the south and features multiple gables in addition to later additions in the form of additional wings to the north, east and west. It is surrounded, in part, by the listed walls which are constructed in the same limestone material and vary in height from around 2 metres to approximately 4.5 metres at the highest sections. [address] and the walls are significant due to their overall design, appearance and setting and historic importance as the manor house to the village.

The proposed garage would be located towards the west of the Manor itself and well back from the main elevation. It would be set behind an ornamental hedge on the site of a former swimming pool. The revised design of the garage would make it a single storey structure which would be constructed in materials to reflect the existing house.

The proposed garage is a relatively large structure, providing garaging for four vehicles in addition to storage and a toilet. Nevertheless, by comparison to the host building and in the context of the wider grounds, it remains a relatively innocuous addition. Its location, set well behind and away from the main front elevation minimises its effect on the appreciation of the Manor from its most important viewpoint to the south. Its position would interrupt some views of the west facing gable of the house and its imposing flank elevation. However, the relatively small side profile of the garage would still allow for vantage of this wing and allow appreciation of it and the large chimney above. Moreover, this aspect is likely to only be appreciated in fleeting views and would not be apparent from any public areas.

In relation to the listed walls, the garage would be of a comparable height to the maximum height of these and would not interrupt any meaningful appreciation of their context or setting as a fringing structure to the Manor. Indeed, the presence of the walls means that it is highly unlikely that the garage would be visible at all in the public realm.

Accordingly, the proposal would preserve the Listed Building and its setting, in accordance with the heritage guidance set out in the Framework and in policies 2 and 8 of the [name] 2016 (NNJCS) and policy EN12 of the East Northamptonshire Local Plan Part 2 2023 (ENLP). This is insofar as the proposal would protect and enhance the character, appearance and significance of designated heritage assets.

The Council expressed concern in relation to there being insufficient information to assess the impact of the development on trees protected by a TPO. The TPO plan1 provided to me indicates a tree which would be located near to the eastern side of the garage. However, at my site visit, it was apparent that this tree was no longer in existence, nor had it been for quite some time. The only indication of its existence was the presence of a stump. The appellant’s statement notes that the tree collapsed several years ago and that it has been replaced elsewhere on the estate.

I have no evidence to indicate when the tree was removed or details of its replacement. No correspondence with the Council to advise them of its loss, removal or details of the replacement have been provided. Regardless of this and the lawfulness of its removal, it is no longer in situ and thus could not be adversely affected by the proposed garage.

Other trees that are protected by a TPO are located in excess of 40 metres away from the site of the proposed garage and therefore could not be affected by the proposal.

As such, I conclude that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on any protected trees and the proposal therefore complies with policies 1, 3 and 8 of the NNJCS and policy EN11 of the ENLP insofar as it would protect the landscape setting of the development.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the setting of any heritage asset, nor would it have any effect on any protected trees. The material considerations do not indicate a decision should 1 TPO 139 be made other than in accordance with the development plan and therefore the appeal is allowed.

I have imposed a general time limit condition to comply with the provisions of the Act and a plans condition in the interests of certainty.

I have required details or samples of materials to be used in the construction of the garage to be provided to the Council. This is due to the historic setting of the site and the importance of using appropriate materials.