Appeal 6001065

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the local area and the setting of the [site address] Conservation Area as a designated heritage asset.

The appeal site (the site) consists of a two-storey, semi-detached residential dwelling, built in the mid part of the 20th century. It takes the form of semi-hipped gable roof in a tile finish. Its upper floor is clad in dark stained horizontal lap timber, whilst its ground floor is in red brick. The property is one of a number of similar properties which occupy a position to the south of [address]. The properties sit within plots of generous size, with long front gardens, resulting in development on this side of the road being set well back from the highway. Their boundaries with [address] are a mix of mature hedges, of varying heights and with vehicular access gates, or are open, their occupiers having removed the front boundary treatment to assist in vehicular access and parking. The properties have garages set either in line with or behind the front elevation of the dwellings.

The site sits just outside of character area 4 ‘The Common’ of the [site address] Conservation Area (CA). However, its front boundary with [address] is the boundary of the CA at this location. The CA derives its significance, insofar as it relates to this appeal, from [site address] ’s origins as a rural village with Saxon and Norman origins. It has a variety of cottages, farms and buildings dating from the sixteenth century with wider eighteenth and nineteenth century expansion.

There are several Listed Buildings within the CA, together with some non-designated heritage assets (NDHA’s), and others identified as ‘[name], of which there are two on [address], one located at each. A further feature of the wider CA is the presence of green and wooded areas and open commons, which were formerly part of deer pasture to the manor, from which the village partly derives its name.

Properties to the northern side of [address], which lie inside the CA, are generally slightly larger in size, and are of a more varied architectural character to those on the south side of the Lane. Their rear boundaries back onto the Common at the heart of the CA. The properties are not set back from the highway as far as those on the southern side. Garages are mostly set in line with or behind the line of front elevations, though there are isolated examples of them being in front, though still set back from the Lane by several metres, allowing vehicles to park and manoeuvre in front. Their boundaries with the Lane are a mix of mature hedges and timber fences, with mature trees within their front gardens. The character of the area is therefore that of a narrow Lane within a mature and green, rural village setting, with development set well back from the Lane.

The proposal would introduce a pitched roof, single storey building around 1m from the property’s front boundary. Its gable would directly face the Lane and would be around 4.6m in height. Whilst it is proposed to plant an evergreen hedge alongside the garage block, this would take time to grow and would likely still only obscure the lower portion of the building’s gable. The large vehicular access proposed, would render the garage block highly visible in views from the Lane, and would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

I find the design and the materials of the proposed garage block would be consistent with both the existing residential property, and with what may otherwise be expected within a rural village setting and would, of themselves, be acceptable. However, because of the proposed siting of the garage, in close proximity to the property’s front boundary with the Lane, it would introduce a large mass, well forward of the building line, which would be incongruous in the street scene, particularly in the context of development on the southern side of [address]. It would therefore be prominent in views west or east along [address] from within the CA, eroding the rural setting of the CA at this location and harming the way in which it is experienced from the public realm, thereby undermining its overall significance.

In relation to the CA, for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), I would assess this harm as being at the lower end of the less than substantial harm range.

Where harm to designated heritage assets has been found to be less than substantial, paragraph 215 of the Framework requires that this harm is weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. I will weigh this harm to the CA against the public benefits later in my planning balance.

For the above reasons, I conclude the proposal would conflict with Policies NBE8 and NBE9 of the Hart Local Plan, Hart saved Policy GEN1 and Policy 2 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan. These require, among other things, that development proposals should seek high quality design to contribute positively to the local area, to conserve or enhance heritage assets and their settings, taking account of their significance, and to take account of protections for the [name].

My attention has been drawn to other schemes which the appellant considers provide precedence for their proposal. I do not have before me all the evidence in relation to each of those cases. However, from the images enclosed, it is evident that the [address] and Winchfield examples are within areas where there is significant openness which surrounds the properties, and the individual buildings are of a smaller scale and height to the appeal proposal. Similarly, the two examples of the garages on [address], clearly show that whilst the garages are in front of the individual property’s building line, there is a significant distance between the garage and the boundary with [address]. As a result, views of these garages would be significantly limited, in views east and west on [address], which would not be the case with the proposal, which would be highly visible. For these reasons, I do not consider the examples provide support for the appeal proposal.

In accordance with the Framework, the less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset (the CA) must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The proposal is for a detached garage to a private residence. As such, it benefits would primarily accrue to the appellant. However, there would be some economic benefit during the construction phase, and removal of the existing single garage with its asbestos materials would remove potential health hazards to the appellants family and adjacent residents.

However, cumulatively the public benefits of the proposal carry only limited weight. They are therefore insufficient to provide the clear and convincing justification to override the less than substantial harm to the CA, which the Framework requires me to assign great weight to its conservation.

I have found the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would cause unjustified harm to the significance of the CA through development within its setting. Hence the proposal would conflict with national policy to protect designated heritage assets.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal proposal would be contrary to the development plan, read as a whole, and that the material considerations I outline above, including policies in the Framework, would not outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.