Appeal 6000922

The appeal is dismissed.

An appeal1 has previously been dismissed for a replacement dwelling on the same site. I have had regard to that appeal in my decision.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Stanpit and Fisherman’s Bank Conservation Area; and • the effect of the development on flood risk.

The appeal site falls within the Stanpit and Fisherman’s Bank Conservation Area (CA). Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires me to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The CA covers an area to the south west of Stanpit and [name] and the area around the [name]. The Stanpit and Fisherman’s Bank Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (CAA) reports that the character of the CA stems from: the landscape setting of the area; the grouping of traditional buildings and the resultant spaces and sense of enclosure; the scale, design, type and materials of the buildings; boundaries and the public realm; landmarks, views and 1 APP/V1260/W/21/3286120 vistas; the interaction with natural features; and the present and former pattern of activities and land uses.

The CAA further highlights, amongst other things, the relationship with the harbour edge, the modest ‘village’ scale and grain and the survival of cottages from early nineteenth century along with the exceptional views across the harbour. These along with the features referenced form the significance of the CA so far as it is relevant to this appeal.

The appeal property is sited directly adjacent to the water’s edge and is accessed via a shared driveway off Stanpit. Adjacent to the site is the entrance to [name] which is highlighted within the CAA as an important glimpsed view of the harbour. The importance of views into the CA from [name] are also highlighted, along with their sensitivity to change and strong roof lines potentially having a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of sections of the CA.

The existing house is set well back from the road, and views of it are partially obscured by the dense hedge forming the boundary to the neighbouring property. As a result of this setback, together with the larger scale of the surrounding dwellings, the house appears as a modest building that, on its own, has a limited and unremarkable presence within the street scene.

The surrounding properties along Stanpit display a mixed character in terms of style and design. Those on the same side of the road as the appeal site are generally more traditional in appearance, in contrast to the bungalows on the opposite side, which lie outside the CA. There are also examples of more contemporary architecture within the vicinity, most notably the modern extension to the neighbouring property adjoining the site.

The appeal property is visible in views from the footpath along [name]. Within this wider context, a range of alterations to surrounding dwellings can be seen, including extensions and large areas of glazing. In these views, the appeal property does not appear visually prominent and does not stand out from its neighbouring buildings.

The pathway along [name] provides closer-range views of the properties that front onto it, where variations in form and a mix of materials are readily apparent. From this vantage point, the appeal property appears more of an anomaly, presenting as a detached dwelling positioned closer to the water and noticeably smaller in scale than its neighbours. Although the original cottage character is more evident in these views, later alterations, such as the flat-roof extension and extensive glazing, detract to some extent from its traditional appearance.

The appeal property is not listed and is not included within the list of unlisted buildings which make a positive contribution to the CA in the CAA. However, as noted by the Inspector considering the previous appeal, the site occupies a significant and visually prominent position within the CA, particularly in relation to the identified gap and access to [name]. It is noted in the previous decision that the property sits comfortably within the street scene and complements the setting of the locally listed buildings. Notably it was not considered to compete with or detract from views towards the harbour, [name] or [name].

I concur with the previous Inspectors conclusion that whilst the existing property is not identified as an important building within the CA, it nonetheless comprises an integral positive and highly visible supporting element within the historic edge of the harbour townscape of this part of the CA and does not detract from it. The Heritage Statement may go so far as to say that the aesthetic value of the property is negative, however, I find that even at worst it would be considered as neutral.

Despite the above, of particular importance is that the Inspector acknowledges that a more contemporary designed replacement building could be acceptable in principle on the site, strongly suggesting that there would be no objection to the replacement of the existing dwelling.

In considering the previous appeal on the site, I note that although the decision has been provided, no specific plans or detailed drawings have accompanied it. However, based on the Inspector’s description within that decision, it is evident that the earlier proposal represented a more contemporary form of development. Reference is made to elements such as a flat roof and a boxy, flat-roofed projection, which the Inspector considered incongruous in the context of the predominantly traditional pitched-roof forms in the surrounding area.

The building proposed for this appeal sits broadly in the same location as the existing house. It will be sited slightly further from the road and has a larger footprint particularly with the projecting single story element. In terms of height the proposed building would have a ridge height higher than the existing building although it is still restricted to two stories with a pitched roof.

In views from Stanpit, the proposed dwelling would be noticeably taller than the existing building on the site, although it would remain a two-storey structure consistent with the general scale of surrounding houses. From wider views across [name], the increased glazing would give the building a degree of prominence; however, it would not appear any more visually striking than other dwellings visible within the same panorama. While the proposal introduces more glazing than the existing house, this is largely concentrated at ground-floor level, which helps to moderate its visual impact. Although the dwelling would be larger overall, I do not find that its presence in views across [name] would result in any harmful visual impact.

However, it is in views from [name], and the important gap between the houses, of the water and [name], where the increased mass of the proposed building would be most apparent. In these viewpoints, the higher ridge line, greater building depth, and resulting increase in overall bulk would be clearly perceptible. Along the bank, the proposed dwelling would appear noticeably larger. Although its scale may not be disproportionate when compared with neighbouring properties, the exposed nature of this elevation, within a particularly sensitive viewpoint, would give the building an undue visual prominence. This would result in visual harm and, consequently, harm to the character and appearance of the CA.

It is acknowledged that the existing building includes some unsympathetic additions, such as the flat-roofed two-storey extension, which detract from its appearance. While the proposed dwelling would introduce a more cohesive and refined architectural approach, the excessive scale of the blank gable end would, on balance, have a greater visual impact. Although the scheme would not be harmful in all viewpoints, the noticeable increase in massing would erode the ‘modest village scale’ that characterises the area, albeit to a lesser degree.

Reference is made to improvements to views from the CROW (Countryside and Rights of Way Act) land. However, given that the proposed building would occupy a larger footprint and would be both wider and taller in this location, and that the boundary wall would remain, I do not consider this to be the case. If anything, the views across the site would be further reduced.

Overall, rather than being a benefit to the CA for the reasons given the proposed replacement dwelling on this site would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area and fail to preserve the character, appearance, and significance of the CA as a whole. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies HE1 and HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan (CEDLP) and saved Policies BE4 and H12 of the Christchurch Local Plan. These promote, amongst other things, high quality design, require development to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of heritage assets and their settings. This includes requiring new development to be compatible with, or improve, its surroundings, including in terms of its scale, bulk, height, and visual impact, be appropriate in character and design to the immediate locality, and maintain important views within and out of the area.

Given the scale and nature of the proposals, I consider that the degree of harm to the significance of the relevant designated heritage asset in this case would be less than substantial and at the lower end of the spectrum. Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicates harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

In terms of public benefits, the proposal offers elements such as more sustainable construction, improved flood resilience and climate-change adaptation measures, enhanced energy efficiency, and biodiversity gains. While positive, these represent limited public benefits in the wider context. I acknowledge that the existing house may require some renovation and improvement; however, I have no evidence before me to suggest that it is uninhabitable. Indeed, at the time of my site visit, it appeared both occupied and capable of continued occupation. As such, the replacement of the building on grounds of condition or insurability would amount primarily to a private benefit to the appellant rather than a meaningful public benefit.

Given my findings that the proposed building would result in a harmful visual impact, I do not consider that it can be said to “retain” views of [name]. Even if the existing views were to remain broadly unchanged, this would represent a neutral outcome rather than a public benefit.

Due to its scale, there would be some small associated economic and social benefits. Nevertheless, these benefits do not outweigh the harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset that I have identified even with this being at the lower end of less than substantial harm. Consequently, the proposal would also conflict with the heritage objectives of the Framework.

The appeal site is situated within [name] 2 and 3 and the Christchurch Strategic Flood Risk Assessment identifies the site as being in future [name] 3a. The proposal involves the replacement of a dwelling in broadly the same location as the existing.

Paragraph 170 of the Framework is clear that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk. Where development is necessary in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

The proposed finished floor levels are required to be 300 mm above the tidal flood level of 3.42 m AOD. However, the submitted plans indicate a finished floor level of 2.6 m AOD, which falls below the threshold set out in the Environment Agency’s Standing Advice. For a development to be considered safe for its lifetime, flood-risk resilience must extend over a 100-year period, therefore until 2125. In this case, the design is assessed as being ‘safe/dry’ only until 2080. The Environment Agency has therefore objected, on the basis that the development would not be safe for its lifetime.

The existing dwelling has a finished floor level of 1.9 m AOD, which is already below the current tidal flood level of 2.02 m AOD, and it is therefore at risk of flooding. The Flood Risk Assessment submitted with the appeal identifies a number of flood-resilient and flood-resistant measures that would be incorporated into the proposed design. The vulnerability classification of the use remains unchanged, and there may be fewer occupants than at present. A Flood Warning and Evacuation Plan has also been provided. Furthermore, the proposed dwelling also includes first-floor living accommodation which would offer a place of refuge during a flood event. In terms of wider evacuation considerations and the response required from emergency services, I do not find that the proposal would provide any substantive difference over the existing situation.

The Environment Agency’s objection carries significant weight in my assessment. However, the material considerations in this case are also relevant. The proposed dwelling would represent an improvement on the existing flood-risk situation, and I therefore acknowledge this as a form of betterment. Furthermore, there is no evidence before me to indicate that the development would increase flood risk elsewhere.

Policy ME6 of the CEDLP requires that, where development is permitted in areas at risk of flooding, it must incorporate appropriate flood-resistance and flood-resilience measures to future-proof it against the effects of climate change. In addition, the policy seeks to ensure that the measures implemented will make the development safe for the duration of its design life, including providing safe, unaided access and egress during flood events, and that it can be demonstrated that the proposal would not increase flood risk elsewhere.

In this case I am satisfied that the proposal incorporates suitable flood resistance and resilience measures and is a betterment on the current situation which I give significant weight. In light of this there is no conflict with Policy ME6 of the CEDLP.

On the application form, the proposal is identified as self-build within the section relating to [name] (BNG). A Section 106 agreement is the appropriate mechanism for securing a development as self- or custom-build rather than market housing. In the absence of such an agreement, I can attach only limited weight to this claim. Moreover, without a formal obligation confirming the scheme as self-build, there is insufficient certainty to conclude that the development would be exempt from the requirement to deliver a 10% BNG. However, as the appeal is dismissed for other reasons, it is not necessary for me to consider this matter further.

The site lies within the Zone of Influence of the Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area, Ramsar Site, the Dorset Heaths Special Area of Conservation and the New Forest Designated Sites. The Council indicates that a financial mitigation contribution is required in respect of these designations; however, it is not evident how additional recreational pressure would arise from a replacement dwelling rather than a net increase in units. In any event, Regulation 63(1) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 requires an Appropriate Assessment only where the competent authority is minded to grant consent. [name] am not allowing the appeal for the reasons already identified in relation to the first main issue, it is not necessary for me to consider this matter further in any detail.

A Residential Property Building Survey Report has been submitted with the application. This indicates that the likely cost of refurbishing the existing dwelling would approach £450,000, with approximately £60,000 of this relating to the installation of kitchens and bathrooms. The report does not conclude that the building is uninhabitable and acknowledges that refurbishment costs are likely to be lower than those of a complete rebuild, although it also notes the potential flood-risk benefits associated with a new dwelling. [name] recognise the defects identified, these do not amount to a justification for demolition. Even if they did, such justification would not outweigh the harm to the Conservation Area arising from the proposed replacement building.

I acknowledge that some support has been expressed for the development, particularly in relation to its design. However, I have addressed this matter above and have found that the proposal is not acceptable in this regard.

Some of the benefits of the scheme have been considered above. As the proposal is for a replacement dwelling, it is neutral in terms of its effect on overall housing supply. I acknowledge that the scheme would provide some betterment in relation to flood risk; however, this benefit is tempered by the fact that the proposed dwelling would

There would be economic benefits associated with the construction of the development. However, considering the relatively modest scale of the proposal, these benefits would be restricted in extent.

The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing. However, I have found that the harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset would not be outweighed by the public benefits of the proposal. Such conflict with policies of the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance and provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Therefore, irrespective of the housing land supply position, the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development outlined at paragraph 11 of the Framework.

To conclude, the proposed development would conflict with the development plan, when read as a whole and there are no other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given the appeal should be dismissed.