Appeal 6001217

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

Whilst on the edge, the appeal site lies outside the designated Green Belt. Accordingly, the Green Belt policies of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and within the South Cambridgeshire Local Plan (2018) (LP) do not apply. I have therefore not assessed the proposal against those policies. However, I have taken into account the council’s concerns regarding the effect of the development on the perceived openness and character of the area adjacent to the Green Belt. These matters are addressed under the main issue relating to character and appearance.

The main issues of the appeal are: • whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the setting of the Listed Building; and • the proposal’s effect on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No’s 10 and [address].

The proposed detached double garage would occupy an area of open land, backed by a tall hedgerow, at the easternmost head of [address]. [address] itself is characterised by large dwellings in spacious plots with the focal point of [name], a [name]* Listed Building on the very edge of the settlement where the lane turns to the east.

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting.

The significance of the Church of [name] derives from its history and architecture and its rural setting on the edge of the village. The openness and rural character of the landscape around the churchyard contributes to how the church is experienced and understood reinforcing its long-standing relationship with the village and its countryside setting. The appeal site itself stands in the foreground of what is evidently a rural landscape beyond.

The proposed double garage would occupy a significant part of the open land at the head of [address] flanked by No 14 and No’s 10 and 12 on the opposite side of the lane. The loss of openness and sense of edge of village rural character would be seriously diminished. This would be particularly apparent from the main arrival at the Church where the proposed double garage would be perceived in the same field of view. The presence of the new building and the eroded perception of the wider countryside would diminish the ability to appreciate the rural setting of the Church.

Taking these factors together, the proposal would result in the lower end of less than substantial harm to the setting of the listed building. In accordance with paragraph 208 of the Framework, such harm must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. No public benefits of the scheme have been put forward. Nevertheless, during my assessment of the scheme, I have also not identified any public benefits that would outweigh the harm to the setting of the Listed Building.

Accordingly, the proposal would conflict with Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, and LP policies NH/14 and HQ/1 which, amongst other matters, seek to support developments only where they sustain and enhance the special character and distinctiveness of the district’s historic environment including its villages and countryside and its building traditions and details, and conserve or enhance important historic assets and their settings.

The appellant highlights that the garage would use traditional materials and a pitched roof form that reflect local vernacular characteristics. Whilst the materials and detailing in isolation would be sympathetic, the primary issue is concerned with the proposal’s siting and relationship with the surrounding landscape. The appeal site forms part of the village edge, and the openness at the end of the [address] provides a transition to the open countryside. This is seen as the layout of buildings in the village begin to disperse the closer they are to the outer edges. The proposed garage would appear as an atypical, isolated structure at the end of [address] extending development into an area that currently reads as open. Even with traditional materials, the closing of this gap would erode the sense of openness that contributes to the rural character of the settlement edge.

Consequently, the development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to LP policies S/7 and HQ/1 which, amongst other matters, require development to be compatible with its location and appropriate in terms of siting in relation to the surrounding area.

Policy HQ/1 seeks to ensure that development does not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. The council’s concern is that, because the garage is a standalone building and not linked to a dwelling, its future use is unclear and could give rise to noise or disturbance.

However, planning decisions must be made on the basis of the proposal before me. The application describes the building as a garage, and there is nothing in the submitted plans or supporting information to indicate that it would be used for anything other than the parking or storage of vehicles and domestic items. Such activities would not normally generate levels of noise, odour or disturbance that would materially harm the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos. 10 or [address]. If the building were to be used for more intensive or commercial activities, that would represent a materially different use from that applied for and would likely require a separate planning permission.

On the basis of the proposal as submitted, I find no unacceptable impact on neighbouring living conditions. Accordingly, the proposal accords with LP policy HQ/1 which requires that the health and amenity of occupiers and surrounding uses are protected from developments.

The appellant refers to the design of the building, its location within [name] 1, and the absence of any identified contamination risks. These matters are either neutral or modestly positive, but they do not outweigh the harm I have found to the setting of the listed church and to the character and appearance of the area.

The appellant states that the proposal would be exempt from the requirement for biodiversity net gain (BNG) on the basis that no habitat is present within the site. However, from my site visit it was evident that the land comprises grassed habitat and the application form confirms that the site area exceeds the [address] metre site threshold at which BNG requirements apply. Nevertheless, the council did not cite BNG as a reason for refusal, and as I am recommending dismissing the appeal for other substantive reasons, this matter has no bearing on my overall conclusion.

In accordance with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, decisions must be taken in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. I have found no harm in respect of the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. However, the proposal would fail to preserve the setting of the listed building, to which I must give considerable importance and weight, and it would also cause harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. These matters bring the proposal into conflict with the development plan. There are no material considerations that would justify a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.