Appeal 3369237

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for [name], [name], [name], Bat & [name], at [name], 10 [site address] , Eakring, Nottinghamshire [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00150/HOUSE, 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 the following approved plans: [name] & Garden – AR-AL-01

The appeal site lies within the Eakring Conservation Area (the CA) and close to the [name] listed [name] (the LB). Accordingly, I have given special regard to the desirability of preserving the LB and its setting, as well as preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA, in accordance with sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, including whether it would preserve the LB and its setting, and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

The appeal site lies near the northern edge of the CA, which encompasses much of the village of Eakring. The CA is defined by a network of narrow lanes, traditional red brick and pantile buildings, and a mix of rustic and modern dwellings. Whilst predominantly residential, the village also includes a number of non-residential uses, such as tearooms, small business units, and the historic [name]. Other notable buildings include the nearby listed windmill, which has been converted to residential use. The significance of the CA is predominantly derived from the village’s historic and architectural character, shaped by its rural setting, agricultural heritage, and varied building forms.

The host dwelling is a detached bungalow of 20th-century construction. It is set back from [site address] on elevated ground, with a raised open frontage set behind a stone boundary wall. Whilst it incorporates some traditional design elements, it is evidently of more recent construction than many nearby buildings and makes a limited contribution to the significance of the CA. Its recessed position and open frontage are also less typical of the prevailing built form in the immediate area.

The proposed development would occupy part of the site’s open frontage. However, this frontage does not form part of a consistent or historic building line, and the introduction of built form in this location would not disrupt any established spatial pattern. The proposed building would reflect the varied streetscene in terms of scale, orientation and architectural detailing.

The Council raises concern about the blank gable end facing the road. However, gable-ended buildings, including garages and outbuildings, are a common feature along [site address] and form part of the established character of the area. The proposed elevation, though largely plain, is consistent with the simple, functional façades typical of traditional outbuildings and agricultural structures found locally. The use of reclaimed materials, along with the building’s proportions and roof pitch, would reflect the vernacular architecture of the area and result in a sympathetic and well-integrated development. Although the site sits above road level, the modest scale of the proposed building and its relationship to nearby, larger structures would ensure it would not appear visually dominant or intrusive.

For these reasons I find that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CA. It would also be visually and functionally separate from the LB and, as such, would have a neutral effect on its significance, preserving its setting.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would accord with Core Policy 14 of the [name], adopted March 2019, Policies DM5, DM6, and DM9 of the Allocations & Development Management Development Plan Document, adopted July 2013, and the guidance within the Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document, adopted November 2014. Collectively, these policies and guidance seek to ensure new development is well designed and respects the significance of heritage assets. The proposal would also accord with the relevant provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework, which have similar aims.

Conditions relating to the statutory time limit and approved plans are necessary in the interests of clarity and certainty. A separate condition requiring matching materials is not necessary, as the proposed materials are specified on the approved plans.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions listed in my formal decision.