Appeal 3374800

The appeal is dismissed.

Due to an administrative error, the Council’s decision notice did not include the wording of the reason for refusal. However, this was set out clearly in the conclusion of the Council’s officer report which the appellant responded to in their appeal statement. The incomplete decision notice did not therefore prejudice the appellant in this instance and the appeal can be fairly determined.

The main issue is the effect of the lightweight car canopy on the character and appearance of the Great Chesterford Conservation Area (CA) and the setting of the [name] listed [address].

The car canopy, which has already been erected, consists of a low-pitched roof covered by a modern waterproof membrane supported by a lightweight frame of thin steel and wooden posts. About 4.8 m long, 3 m wide and raised about 1.8 m above ground, the structure covers a parking space in front of a single garage which is now used for storage. The structure is situated in one corner of a short driveway off [site address] which provides access to the parking space/garage of [site address] together with other garages serving nearby properties.

The Grade II listed [address] is an attractive late 16th century timber framed and plastered house fronting [site address] which is separated from the new structure by its rear garden and a modern 1970s 1.8 m high wall. This and the curving 1.8 m high boundary wall to the neighbouring unlisted1 [address] post-date the 1967 listing of [address] and complicate any assessment of its curtilage. 1 According to the appellant’s Design and Heritage Statement, although this also says that the listed building was converted into two dwellings, [site address] and [address], in the 1980s, after the listing in 1967. The list description also includes ‘a later addition at the south-east end, formerly a slaughter house’ which would appear to be [address]. However, the structure lies within the setting of the listed building as seen from the driveway, notwithstanding that this is a relatively recent feature in this part of the village. Importantly, the structure also lies in the heart of the extensive [name] which is designated in recognition of its special architectural and historic interest.

[site address] is one of the most attractive and historic streets in the central part of the CA. It is lined by several timber framed and painted plaster buildings with tiled roofs sited hard up to the road amongst some later 18th/19th century buildings of painted brick and slate roofs and front boundary walls of flint and brick. Whilst the car canopy is set back behind the street frontage in one corner of a driveway off [site address] , it is clearly seen by passers-by. A poorly designed and temporary looking modern structure amongst the traditionally constructed buildings nearby, and built of unsympathetic materials given its context, the canopy appears as an unusual, discordant and intrusive feature out of character in its setting.

The structure is freestanding, not connected to any historic fabric, reversible, and screened on three sides by buildings or walls. It is said that the garage is not now suitable for use, and the canopy is needed to protect the appellant’s car from the weather. However, these arguments and the private benefit for the appellant do not outweigh the heritage harm, albeit less than substantial, that is caused by the introduction of the car canopy into the CA and the setting of the listed building.

For these reasons the lightweight car canopy significantly harms the character and appearance of the [name] and the significance of the [name] listed [address] by encroaching on its setting. This conflicts with Policies ENV1 and ENV2 of the Uttlesford Local Plan 2005 which seek to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA and protect the setting of the listed building. The canopy also conflicts with the legislative duties to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA and to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their settings.

The appeal should therefore be dismissed.