Appeal 6000953

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to erection of timber framed gazebo. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to erection of timber storage shed and planning permission is granted for erection of timber storage shed at [site address] , [site address] , Lincoln, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/0001/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings: Site Location Plan; Proposed Block Plan 1879/5; and Proposed ‘[name] 1879/6.

The shed hereby approved shall be clad in accordance with details of materials that have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority within 3 months of the date of this decision. The agreed materials shall be implemented within 3 months from the date of being approved.

An application for costs was made by [name] of the [site address] [address] against North Kesteven District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The description of the development provided on the planning application form has been replaced by an amended version on the decision notice. Neither of the main parties has provided written confirmation that a revised description of development has been agreed. Accordingly, I have used the one given on the original application.

Reference has been made to the retrospective nature of the application in relation to the timber storage shed, and I saw that the shed was in place at the time of my visit.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on the: • Character and appearance of the host property and the area, with due regard to heritage assets; and • Living conditions of nearby residents in respect of noise, odour and light.

The appeal proposals would be located to the rear of the [site address] [address]. The area to the rear of the public house is of a relatively utilitarian character, including a car park, external seating and bin storage. Despite being located to the rear, this area has an open aspect which enables views of the appeal site from the A607 [address] which is a main road passing through the village. Although views from passing traffic may be fleeting, the open character of the area to the rear of the public house means that it is readily visible from the public realm.

The appeal site is located in the Wellingore Conservation Area (the CA), which covers the historic area of the village and includes significant buildings such as [name]. Although there is a mixture of materials used in buildings within the CA, a common feature is the use of limestone walls and pantile roofs. This characteristic use of materials contributes to the cohesive character of the CA and its importance as a designated heritage asset.

The public house makes a positive contribution to the CA and as such is identified as a non-designated heritage asset. Based on what I have seen and read, the primary contribution of the public house to the CA arises from its front elevation onto [site address] and the use of traditional materials. However, the rear elevation enables an appreciation of the form of the main building, and there is also evidence of the use of traditional materials in an outbuilding to the rear. The rear of the public house therefore also makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA and supports the significance of the public house as a non-designated heritage asset.

In respect of the gazebo, the Council does not object to the scale and location of the building. It also accepts that the use of an open timber frame would result in an acceptable building of a lightweight design and appearance, subject to the use of an appropriate roofing material. However, the sides and rear of the gazebo would be enclosed with timber boarding, albeit that the side elevations would also include a ‘pull down’ canvas feature. The use of timber boarding for much of these elevations would lead to a bulky feature with an extent of boarding that is unsympathetic to the host property and the wider area.

Although the front of the gazebo would be open this would have pull-down clear canvas covers, and when combined with the use of timber boarding for much of the other elevations this would lead to a bulky feature to the rear of the public house.

Due to its bulk, degree of enclosure and use of materials, the gazebo would lead to an obtrusive structure that would be detrimental to the appreciation of the form of the traditional building of the public house as well as the contribution that the site makes to the character and appearance of the CA.

The proposed storage shed would be attached to an existing outbuilding which is of the traditional limestone and pantile construction. In contrast, the shed is constructed from horizontal timber boarding with a shingle roof, and this gives the shed a bland appearance that does not sit comfortably with the traditional materials of the adjoining building. Even within the utilitarian character of the rear area of the public house, the shed appears as an incongruous feature that detracts from the character and appearance of the host property and the CA. The appellant refers to the potential to stain the shed in a heritage tone, but this would not be sufficient to overcome the unsatisfactory appearance of the shed and the relationship with the adjoining building.

Reference has been made to a mobile workshop kept at the site as well as features such as bin storage. However, these are moveable features and would not justify the use of inappropriate materials on a permanent structure such as the proposed shed.

The appellant contends that timber is a traditional building material, and I saw that there were bus shelters in the area that were constructed from timber boarding. However, the use of timber boarding for the construction of buildings is not a common feature within the CA, and the bus shelters are of an attractive design using pantile roofs and are set within a different context to the appeal proposals. Although timber is also used in features such as fencing and seating, these are not of the same scale and appearance as the appeal proposals.

However, the Council’s Conservation Officer sets out that the scale of the shed would be acceptable if it was constructed from traditional materials. On that basis, and subject to a condition requiring the approval of materials to be used, I conclude that the shed would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would preserve the character and appearance of the CA.

Notwithstanding my conclusion in respect of the shed; I conclude that due to its design, bulk and use of materials the proposed gazebo would lead to significant harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the area. The gazebo would therefore be contrary to the design considerations of Policy S53 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2023 (the Local Plan) as well as the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) with regard to achieving well-designed places.

For the same reasons, the gazebo would also fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA, and would harm the significance of the public house as a non-designated heritage asset. Given the scale and nature of the proposed development, the harm arising to the CA would be less than substantial. The Framework requires that less than substantial harm is balanced against any public benefits. I will return to this matter below.

The Council’s reason for refusal on this issue relates only to the proposed gazebo, and not the storage shed.

The gazebo would be located within the existing external seating area of the public house. Based on the evidence before me and my own observations, the seating area includes a number of seats and tables which will lead to commensurate existing noise levels including from customers drinking, talking and passing through the area. However, the open nature of the seating area will limit its use, particularly in inclement weather. In that regard, the appellant’s Heritage Statement indicates that during the winter months the area becomes redundant due to the cold and wet weather. On that basis, I consider that the gazebo would extend the times and intensity of use of the seating area.

The external seating area has a close-knit relationship with the adjacent dwelling to the west. This dwelling has a number of rear windows which look onto the site, with the result that residents will be aware of activity and noise from customers using that area. That said, I have not been provided with evidence of a history of complaints from nearby residents, and no objections from nearby residents have been submitted in relation to the proposal.

However, I am also mindful of the operating hours of the public house, which may extend until 2.30am. Given the times of use and sensitive relationship between the seating area and the neighbouring dwelling, there is a significant possibility that the proposal would increase the times and intensity of use of the area thereby exacerbating noise from customers at unsocial hours. In turn, I consider that this would lead to noise levels that would have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of neighbouring residents. Although the gazebo would be enclosed on 3 sides and would also include pull-down canvas covers, this form of construction would not prevent noise from escaping and affecting the nearby dwelling.

The appellant refers to the lack of an acoustic report or monitoring data to support the Council’s concerns on noise. However, although the assessment of noise impacts may be subjective in this case, I consider that the Council’s concerns on this issue are well-founded.

The Council refers to potential disturbance from playing music and live bands within the gazebo. However, the appellant has confirmed that the [site address] does not hold a live music licence and that amplified music would require separate authorisation. In any event, these concerns could be addressed by a planning condition preventing the playing of live or amplified music in association with the gazebo.

Although the gazebo may include lighting, it is also reasonable to expect that lighting would be provided in association with the extant seating area. In any event, a lighting scheme could be secured by condition which would address matters including levels of illumination, shielding of lights and times of operation to mitigate the effect on neighbouring residents.

The Council also refers to odours associated with the proposal. Although this is not elaborated upon, the gazebo may provide shelter for smoking and vaping. However, the existing area will be used for that purpose, even in inclement weather and during the winter months. Although the gazebo may lead to an increase in use, given the nature of the extant use and the separation of the gazebo from the site boundary, I do not consider that odours from activities associated with the proposal would lead to unacceptable harm to nearby residents compared to the extant use of the site.

Notwithstanding my conclusions in respect of light and odour, I conclude that the proposed gazebo would lead to unacceptable harm to the living conditions of nearby residents due to noise. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the amenity considerations of Policy S53 of the Local Plan as well as the Framework which seeks to ensure a high standard of amenity for existing and future users of places.

The public house is close to the Grade II Listed Building of The Old Sweet Shop which is located on [site address] . However, the appeal proposals are separated from the Listed Building by the main building of the public house and are not viewed within the context of the Listed Building. On that basis the proposals would preserve the setting of the Listed Building.

I note the frustrations expressed by the appellant in relation to the level of communication from the Council leading up to this appeal. However, this is not a matter for this appeal which I have determined on its planning merits.

The Council has provided a list of suggested conditions, and the appellant has had the opportunity to comment on these. I have considered the suggested conditions against the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance, and as a result have reworded some of the conditions in the interests of effectiveness.

A condition in respect of the commencement of the development is not required as the development has commenced. I have imposed a condition requiring the development of the shed to be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans in the interests of certainty.

A condition requiring the approval of details of materials for the shed is required in the interests of character and appearance. I have removed the reference to specific materials in the interests of flexibility, but the materials to be used will ultimately rely on the approval of the local planning authority.

I have dismissed the appeal in respect of the gazebo, and therefore a condition relating to the materials for that structure is not required.

I have concluded that the harm arising to the CA from the proposal would be less than substantial, and the Framework requires that less than substantial harm is balanced against any public benefits.

In respect of benefits, the appellant states that since installation of the gazebo and shed the public house has experienced a measurable increase in business turnover and year-round viability, with resultant new staff roles and employment opportunities. Reference has also been made to benefits to the supply-chain of businesses serving the public house.

However, the gazebo is not in place, and on that basis it has not been demonstrated that the business and employment benefits are as significant as indicated. Nevertheless, I recognise that the gazebo would benefit the operation of the public house by improving facilities and the use of the outdoor space, with associated business and employment benefits. I am also mindful that the public house is a valuable community asset, as is shown by the letters submitted in support of the proposal. However, it has not been demonstrated that the continued operation of the public house is reliant on the gazebo, and based on the evidence before me I give these benefits no more than moderate weight.

Although the construction of the gazebo would be reversible, the application was not submitted on the basis of it being for a temporary period. I have therefore assessed the appeal as being for permanent structures. Reference has been made to a marquee previously on the site, but based on the evidence before me this was not a permanent structure of the same nature as the gazebo. Although timber used in the construction of the proposals may be a sustainable material, this does not outweigh the harm arising to character and appearance.

Although the harm to the CA arising from the gazebo would be less than substantial, the Framework sets out that great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets. The gazebo would also harm the significance of the non-designated heritage asset of the public house due to its effect on character and appearance, and I also attach great weight to that harm. The proposal would have a number of benefits, but even considered cumulatively these benefits only carry moderate weight in favour of the appeal and would not outweigh the harm to the CA or the non-designated heritage asset. On that basis, the gazebo would conflict with the historic environment considerations of Policy S57 of the Local Plan as well as the Framework.

I have also concluded that the gazebo would be contrary to the development plan and the Framework with regards to character and appearance as well as living conditions. There are no material considerations that indicate the appeal in respect of the gazebo should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan.

However, I have concluded that the proposed timber storage shed is acceptable subject to conditions, and would therefore not conflict with the development plan.

The separate elements of the proposal are clearly severable, and I shall therefore issue a split decision to dismiss the appeal in respect of the gazebo, but allow the appeal in respect of the shed.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed in part and dismissed in part.