Appeal 6000664

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and whether it would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Royal [site address] Conservation Area; • whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for future occupants, with particular regard to outlook; and • the effect of the proposal on highway safety, and the living conditions of existing residents, with particular regard to the demand for parking.

The appeal site is located in the Royal [site address] Conservation Area (RLSCA). I have therefore approached this appeal in the context of Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), which requires special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the RLSCA.

From the evidence before me and my observations on site, the significance of the RLSCA, in so far as it relates to this appeal, is the architectural value of the historic buildings and how their layout and composition relate to the evolution of the town.

[address] comprises a varied mix of dwelling types, including flats and a retirement home, alongside garages and outbuildings primarily serving properties on [address]. Building heights range from single-storey garages to three-storey blocks, though the houses are predominantly two storeys. The highway is relatively narrow, and the combination of some houses abutting the back of the footway, boundary walls, and street trees, creates a sense of enclosure. Brickwork provides some visual cohesion, with brick boundary walls being a particular feature of the street-scene.

The appeal site is notably smaller than other plots on [address]. The existing garage spans the full width of the plot and occupies over half its area. Despite this, its low profile, simple form, and modest materials ensure it sits comfortably within the street scene and aligns with the character of [address]. Overall, the appeal site in its current form has a neutral impact on the RLSCA.

I saw on my visit that most of the detached houses along [address] are set back from the highway with space around them so that they sit comfortably within their plots. Contrary to this, the proposed building, although set in from the site boundaries with a smaller footprint than the existing garage, would have a very limited amount of space around it. This would be accentuated by the proposed building’s interruption of the front boundary wall, which, given the 45-degree relationship between the two, would be unusual and would highlight the cramped nature of the site. Notwithstanding this, as the proposed building would be positioned further from No. [address] and the garage to the rear of No. [address], with the new boundary wall maintaining a similar relationship with this garage as the existing garage, I am not of the view that the proposal would encroach on neighbouring development.

At two storeys, the proposed building would be more prominent than the existing garage, though not necessarily more so than other nearby structures. For example, No. [address] is noticeable due to its modern design and materials, and the garage to the rear of No. [address] stands out because of its steeply pitched roof. While the proposed frontage would be more open than its immediate neighbours, unlike Nos. 7–[address], it would include some brick boundary wall in keeping with the street-scene. Furthermore, given the appeal site’s unique position on the bend in the highway, the proposed frontage would not be readily apparent in the street scene. As such, it would not materially erode the sense of enclosure or character of [address] to a degree that it would harm the character, appearance or significance of the RLSCA.

The proposal would partly obscure views from [address] of the rear elevations of Nos. 37 and [address], both [name] listed. The Council considers these elevations to form a focal point within this part of the RLSCA. I address the effect on the proposal on these listed buildings later in my decision.

On my visit, I noted that the rear elevations of the listed buildings are attractive and contribute positively to the RLSCA’s significance. However, in my view, they do not command the degree of prominence expected of a focal point. They can only be seen from the closed end of [address] beyond the bend where the appeal site lies, and not from any earlier vantage point. Within this limited view, other prominent built forms, such as No. [address] and the garage to the rear of No. [address], draw attention away from them.

I acknowledge that initial views of these rear elevations are taken over the appeal site and would be partly obstructed by the proposal. The proposal therefore would reduce the amount of space from which the listed buildings can be seen and appreciated. Nonetheless, the listed buildings are seen and appreciated within an urban environment where intervening structures already disrupt views of their rear elevations. Moreover, the additional distance along [address] that would need to be covered to obtain a clearer view of them would not be significant. The effect of the proposal, in this regard, would therefore be limited and localised and would not lead to any appreciable harm to the significance of the RLSCA.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would appear cramped within its constrained plot and, in this regard, at odds with the established pattern of development along [address], resulting in an incongruous addition to the street scene. This would harm the character and appearance of the area and the RLSCA, thereby diminishing its significance. The proposal would therefore not accord with Policy HE2 of the Warwick District Local Plan (2017) (Local Plan), which only permits the demolition of unlisted buildings in conservation areas where the detailed design of the replacement can demonstrate that it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area.

Notwithstanding this, the harm to the character and appearance of the RLSCA would be moderated by the proposed building’s modest scale, simple form, and predominantly red brick finish, which would broadly reflect the prevailing character of [address]. The proposal would also follow the linear arrangement of the development along [address]. The overall level of harm to the significance of the RLSCA would therefore only be moderate.

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. This is irrespective of whether any harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm.

In this case, the harm to the significance of the RLSCA would be less than substantial and at the lower end of that range. Nevertheless, this harm carries considerable importance and weight. In such circumstances, in line with Paragraph 215 of the Framework, Policy HE1 of the Local Plan requires this harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

In terms of benefits, the proposal would provide two 1-bedroom apartments in an accessible location, which would support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of housing. Also, as a small site, the proposal could be built out relatively quickly. The Council does not currently have a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. Its current supply position is 2.34 years. The provision of any additional housing therefore carries meaningful weight. However, in this case, the two 1-bed apartments would only make a modest contribution towards the District’s housing supply.

The proposal would have some modest social and economic benefits arising from the spending associated with its construction and subsequent occupation. There would also be modest environmental benefits arising from the provision of an air source heat pump, electric vehicle charging points, planting and a bat box.

Nonetheless, these modest public benefits would not outweigh the harm I have identified to the character and appearance, and significance of the RLSCA. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy HE1 of the Local Plan and the associated provisions of the Framework.

The bedroom window of the ground floor apartment would face the proposed parking spaces, so views from it would likely often include parked vehicles. It would be unreasonable to control the times when these spaces could be occupied. Given the potential size of vehicles, which also could not be reasonably restricted, there is a real risk that the outlook from this window would be poor, creating an oppressive environment within the room, particularly if larger vehicles were parked.

This would not provide future occupants with satisfactory living conditions and, as such, would conflict with Policy BE3 of the Local Plan, which only permits development that would. Nonetheless, as views from the living area would remain open towards [address] and the retirement home opposite, and would include mature trees, the resulting harm would be limited.

At the time of my visit, there were very few vehicle and pedestrian movements along [address]. However, I recognise this was a snapshot in time and that activity may increase at other times, such as during the peak commuter travel period or peak visiting times at the retirement home. Notwithstanding this, there were no available parking spaces along [address], and, while I acknowledge that a recent parking survey identified some capacity locally, I did not observe any other available spaces within a convenient walking distance of the appeal site.

The proposal includes two parking spaces to the front of the proposed building, each measuring 2.4m by 4.8m. These fall short of the dimensions required by the Council’s Parking Standards SPD. As such, the proposal would conflict with Policy TR3 of the Local Plan, which seeks to ensure compliance with these standards. Although some additional hardstanding is shown, the submitted plans before me indicate that there would be insufficient space to accommodate two compliant spaces, particularly as one is positioned against a boundary wall and would therefore require extra width for manoeuvring.

To allow convenient access to and from the vehicles, it is probable that at least one vehicle would overhang the footway, be repositioned in front of the ground-floor living room window, or occupants would choose to park on [address].

Each option has adverse implications: overhanging vehicles would force pedestrians onto the carriageway, increasing the risk of collision with vehicles and compromising highway safety; repositioning the vehicles would harm the outlook from the living room; and utilising on-street parking would add to the current demand and pressure for spaces that are already fully occupied. This could lead to an increase in inconsiderate and potentially dangerous parking, which would compromise highway safety and harm the living conditions of existing residents.

The appellant has suggested that to address the undersized spaces, the provision of a single parking space rather than two could be secured by condition. However, despite the accessibility of the appeal site, there is no mechanism to prevent future occupants of the proposal from parking vehicles close to the proposal. Thus, this would not address the harm arising from an increase in the demand for parking along [address].

Accordingly, the undersized spaces would likely result in either unacceptable highway safety impacts or harm to living conditions of existing residents. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the proposal would therefore conflict with either Policy TR3 or Policy BE3 of the Local Plan. Policy TR3 of the Local Plan seeks to ensure development would not result in on-street car parking detrimental to highway safety. Nevertheless, given the accessible location of the appeal site, the modest scale of the proposal and the generally low traffic levels along [address], the degree of resulting harm would be limited.

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me to give special regard to preserving listed buildings or their settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess.

The significance of Nos. 37 and [address] derives from their architectural value and their historic contribution to the evolution of the town. They front an area of open space that borders the [name] and provides an important part of their setting. The remainder of their setting is primarily urban, comprising a wide variety of buildings along [address] and [address].

The proposal would be visible in views taken from the rear windows of the listed buildings and their rear gardens. Nonetheless, these views comprise a variety of built form, including the three-storey retirement home and block of flats on [address]. The proposal, given its modest scale and simple form, would not be an obtrusive addition to this setting and, therefore, would neither harm the setting or significance of the listed buildings.

For similar reasons to those above, the small reduction in space from which the listed buildings can be seen and appreciated from [address] would also not result in any harm to the setting or significance of the listed buildings.

Given the shortfall in housing supply, paragraph 11d) of the Framework falls to be considered. In this case, I have found that the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the RLSCA, which is not outweighed by public benefits. It would also result in limited harm to highway safety and the living conditions of both future occupants and existing residents. This harm is not outweighed by the modest benefits of the proposal. The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan, read as a whole.

In this case, the application of policies in the Framework that protect designated heritage assets provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Consequently, the proposal would not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development outlined at paragraph 11 of the Framework.

For the reasons above, having had regard to the development plan as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that that appeal should be dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR