Appeal 6001288

The appeal is dismissed.

The original description of development on the application form is “proposed detached garage with room over.” Based on the planning history of the site, including plans previously associated with the land, the Council considered that the proposal also involves a material change of use of land to domestic use. The appellant disputes this. However, the evidence before me indicates that the appellant agreed to the revised description prior to the Council issuing its decision.

The appellant contends that the appeal site has formed part of the ‘domestic curtilage’ since planning permission1 was granted for the host dwelling in 2014 and has submitted a site plan from that earlier application in support. This plan is said to identify the approved garden area for the [name] development and includes a green-shaded section claimed to show land formerly associated with the [address] garden. [name] – Statement on Site History and Ownership provides further background. Nevertheless, there is limited evidence to demonstrate that the whole of the appeal site forms part of the host dwelling’s garden land. In particular, the earlier site plan does not fully correspond with the extent of the appeal site shown on the “[name] & Elevations” drawing. I have also not been provided with a certificate of lawfulness that would confirm the claimed status of the land.

I have therefore considered the appeal scheme on the same basis as the Council and have adopted, in the decision header above, the description of development set out in the Council’s decision notice.

The main issues are: 1 LPA ref: 13/01805/FUL • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, and whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Blidworth Conservation Area (BCA); and • The effect of the proposal on the appeal site’s ecology.

The appeal site relates to an end-of-terrace dwelling and its associated land, occupying a prominent position on the southern side of [site address] , within the BCA. The significance of the BCA, insofar as it relates to this appeal, derives from the cohesive relationship between historic built form, traditional plot boundaries, and the presence of open and green spaces. The appeal site forms part of this pattern by providing an area of openness and greenery that contributes to the character and appearance of the BCA.

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 a conservation area. National policy on heritage assets is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). At paragraph 202 it states that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance.

The proposal, through the change of use of the land located to the south-west of the host dwelling to domestic garden, combined with ground-level changes, removal of some of the existing trees, and introduction of a substantial and prominently located detached garage, would erode the verdant and open qualities that contribute to the BCA’s significance.

The proposed structure, due to its substantial breadth, height, and volume, combined with its prominent position within the plot, would appear as a visually dominant feature. [name] acknowledge the appellant’s points on matching materials, the locally reflective roof pitch, the partial sinking of the structure into the embankment, and comparisons with both the former public house and the cottages opposite, these considerations do not overcome the fundamental concern about the building’s overall scale, footprint, massing and proportionality, particularly in relation to the host dwelling. Although the appellant contends that the building would reflect irregular building lines, avoid obstructing views, and align with nearby gable forms, its size and siting mean it would appear as an overly large and visually assertive building, rather than a subordinate ancillary structure to the host dwelling.

The appellant’s arguments concerning land levels, namely that the existing banking is not original, that landfill deposits from the former [name] public house created the slope, and that ‘much’ of the banking and vegetation would be retained, do not alter my findings above. Regardless of how the current levels arose, the land today forms part of a visible open and green area that contributes positively to the setting of the host dwelling and to the character and appearance of this part of the BCA. As the proposal would significantly domesticate and build over this area, any partial retention of banking and vegetation would not adequately screen a building of the proposed size, nor would it mitigate its substantial massing. Accordingly, the proposal would therefore be harmful to the character and appearance of both the host dwelling and the BCA.

The appellant’s evidence does little to demonstrate which already planted trees seek to mitigate the loss of the trees and vegetation required to accommodate the proposed garage. Moreover, the green space located immediately to the south-west of the site does not offset or justify the proposal, as the appeal site has its own contribution to the BCA, as identified above.

Given the scale of the proposal and the extent of the conservation area, harm to the significance of the BCA would be low within the less than substantial category. Due to the impact of the proposal on the BCA, the identified harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal in accordance with paragraph 215 of the Framework. The appellant outlined additional storage and parking as benefits. However, these would be private benefits rather than public. I have not been provided with substantial evidence with regard to any public benefits. Accordingly, I find that there are no public benefits that would outweigh the harm I have identified, harm which, given the requirements of the Act, carries great weight.

For the above reasons, the proposal would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the BCA. Thus, it would not meet the statutory requirements of the Act. Furthermore, the development would be contrary to the aims of [name] 9 and 14 of the [name] 2019 (CS) , and Policies DM5 and DM9 of the Newark & Sherwood Local Development Framework Allocations & Development Management Development Plan 2013 (A & DMDP), which collectively require, amongst other things, developments to achieve a high standard of design that reflects local distinctiveness, to respect the scale, form, siting of the host building and its context, and to conserve and, where appropriate, enhance heritage assets. The proposal would also conflict with the aims of the Framework, as set out above.

The Council’s second reason for refusal centres on the absence of ecological and arboricultural surveys to accompany the proposal. Given that I have addressed the trees aspect in my section above, this section focuses on the ecological survey issue. Core Policy 12 of the CS seeks to secure development that maximises opportunities to conserve, enhance and restore biodiversity and geological diversity and to strengthen the District’s wider green infrastructure network. Likewise, Policy DM7 of the A & DMDP requires proposals to protect, promote and enhance green infrastructure as part of the ecological network, ensuring that potential impacts on biodiversity are fully understood and appropriately addressed before development is permitted. Policy DM5 further requires that proposals do not result in unacceptable impacts on the natural environment, which cannot be robustly assessed without proportionate ecological information.

[name] note the appellant’s concerns about the absence of an explicit request for an ecological survey from the Council before the statutory determination date, the duty to support an application with sufficient information rests primarily with the appellant, particularly in this case where the application is treated as a full application, rather than householder, due to the change of use of land element. Therefore, the absence of a specific Council request does not remove the requirement to demonstrate compliance with the aforementioned policies. Nor does it override the statutory requirement for decisions to be based on sufficient environmental information.

The long‐term presence of ground covering does not, in itself, demonstrate the absence of ecological interest. In the absence of a qualified ecological survey, it cannot be assumed that the site lacks ecological value or that harm would not arise from construction works or associated excavation. The appellant’s assertion therefore does not provide a robust or policy‐compliant substitute for professional ecological evidence.

In conclusion, the absence of an ecological survey means that I cannot be satisfied that the development would avoid adverse effects on the ecological value of the site. Therefore, the proposal would be contrary to the aims of CS Core Policy 12 and A & [name] DM5 and DM7, as set out above.

I have had regard to the appellant’s references to other approved garages, including the development allowed at appeal2. However, I have not been provided with full details of those cases, and it has not been demonstrated that the proposal is directly comparable with them, particularly in the context of the type of application and all the elements of the development. Accordingly, I have considered the appeal scheme based on its own merits and site-specific circumstances.

The Council found the principle of the proposed change of use acceptable. The proposal was also found acceptable in terms of its effect on the living conditions of the nearby residents. Given the evidence before me, I have no reason to disagree. However, these do not negate the harmful impact of the development as identified above.

I acknowledge the support comments from third parties for the proposal. However, these do not alter my findings above. A lack of objections from third parties or Parish Council is a neutral matter, rather than one that carries positive weight for the development.

The evidence before me indicates that the Council’s Conservation Officer has outlined their concerns regarding the proposal within their correspondence with the Planning Officer.

I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns over the Council’s handling of the application. However, this is not a matter that I can consider under a Section 78 planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal should be dismissed. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR 2 Appeal ref: APP/B3030/D/25/3369237