Appeal 6001334

The appeal is allowed in part and planning permission is granted for erection of new dwelling at [site address] in accordance with the application Ref 24/00539/VAR, without compliance with condition numbers 2 and 10 of the previously imposed on planning permission Ref 19/02622/FUL dated 14/02/2020 and subject to the conditions as set out in the Schedule of Conditions.

An application for costs has been made by [name] against the Council. This matter is subject to a separate decision.

Planning permission has previously been granted for the erection of a new dwelling at the appeal site. During my site visit, it was noted that the new dwelling had been erected, but most importantly, as had a revised driveway with a new vehicular access gate and a further pedestrian access gate. This matter is the subject of this appeal. It was not entirely clear during my site visit whether the dwelling was occupied. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, I have assessed the appeal on this basis.

The appeal site is sited within the [site address] Conservation Area. Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. I have had due regard to this duty within my

The main issue is whether conditions 2,10 and 12 are reasonable and necessary in order to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area (CA).

The CA has historically served as the centre of an agricultural settlement, and its landscape continues to reflect this long‐standing association with farming and rural activity. The [site address] Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan 2023 outlines the defining characteristics of the CA, noting that its significance is shaped by the arrangement of the village and its use of materials. Public buildings are clustered around the focal point of [name], with former agricultural buildings dispersed beyond this core. With the exception of the Church, which is constructed in traditional stone, buildings within the CA are predominantly formed of red brick, complemented in some instances by rendered or painted white brick. Boundary treatments typically comprise matching red‐brick walls, although railings and timber picket fencing are also present.

The appeal site lies within the Village Centre character area and, as previously noted, now accommodates a new dwelling. The building has been designed with a scale and form reminiscent of a traditional barn, incorporating red brick and timber materials. Its overall appearance is considered to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA.

Condition 2 required the previously approved development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans. Condition 10 required the full details of all screen fencing and walling to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The Council considers that the details provided introduce large gates flanked by brick piers, creating a visually heavy and overly formal entrance treatment that is out of keeping with the rural character of the CA.

During my site visit, I observed several examples of timber gates of a comparable height within the surrounding area. Notably, a timber gate at The Barn, located close to the appeal site, is strikingly similar in form and appearance to the gate currently in situ at the appeal property. The Barn is also host to design elements, which have a similar design philosophy of the building within the appeal site. In relation to this example, the Council states that permission was granted for a replacement gate alongside a widened access, on the basis that the original gate did not make a positive contribution to the character of the CA.

However, the fact remains that the Council has approved a gate design elsewhere that is broadly comparable to the one subject to this appeal. If such a design is deemed inappropriate within the CA, as asserted in the context of the current proposal, it is reasonable to question why the gate at The Barn was considered as acceptable whilst one of a similar form and materials is not considered acceptable on the appeal site.

Continuing along [site address] , [name] features a dark set of solid timber gates, while The Gatehouse incorporates a pair of tall grey gates. Both examples are of a comparable height to the gates subject to this appeal. [address] has installed railing‐style gates that allow visibility into the site, the entrance is framed by brick pillars of a similar form to those proposed at the appeal site. The presence of substantial timber gates within the CA is not confined to vehicular access points. Large timber doors serving garage spaces are clearly visible at The Barn, [name] and [address], with several positioned directly onto [site address] . Taken together, these examples demonstrate that tall, robust timber gates and doors form a strong and established character component of the CA.

I shall now turn my attention to the removal of a section of the boundary wall which runs along [site address] to facilitate the proposed access gates and arrangement. The [site address] Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan 2023 does indeed note that red brick walls and hedges as typical boundary treatments within the village centre of the CA. However, as previously outlined, tall and robust timber gates also form an established and characteristic feature within this part of the CA.

During my site visit, I observed that the sections of boundary wall proposed for removal are limited to the relatively small openings required for the access gates when compared to the length of the boundary wall overall. A substantial length of the wall and hedge would remain intact and would continue to form a prominent and defining feature within the CA, notwithstanding the introduction of the gates subject to this appeal.

The Council raises concern that the appeal site, its driveway and any parked vehicles would be visible when the gates are open. I acknowledge that, although the gates were closed during my site visit and are likely to remain closed for most of the time given the private nature of the development, there may be occasions when they are left open for extended periods. However, I do not consider that the visibility of approved buildings, each of which would have been assessed for their impact on the CA and have subsequently been approved by the Council, and the presence of vehicles, which are a commonplace element of street scenes, would result in harm to the character or appearance of the CA.

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the visual impact of the amended boundary arrangement facing [site address] , together with the introduction of a timber gate and the reconfiguration of the driveway, would have only a very limited effect on the character or appearance of the CA as a whole. Consequently, Conditions 2 and 10 are not necessary to ensure the preservation of the character or appearance of the CA. [name] acknowledge the Council’s preference for traditional field gates within a rural village setting, and I accept that such examples exist within [site address] , my assessment must be grounded in the specific characteristics of this particular part of the CA, which does include gates of this size, scale and similarity of design.

The changes undertaken would therefore accord with Policies 10 and 11 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1: [name] 2014 and Policies 1 and 28 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies 2019. Collectively, these policies require development to avoid significant adverse effects on historic assets, including conservation areas, and to reinforce local character through appropriate massing, scale, style and materials. While Policy D1 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan 2021 encourages the use of rural boundary treatments, the overarching objective of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA would not be undermined. I therefore conclude that the development is not in conflict with the development plan. Nor would it conflict with the design and heritage aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.

I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and that a new planning permission should be granted with amended Conditions 2 and 10 to reflect the revised drawings submitted. A condition relating to the commencement of development is unnecessary, as the works have already been completed.

I have also retained those conditions from the previous permission that are not disputed and remain relevant. The Planning Practice Guidance confirms that, when granting planning permission under Section 73, decision notices should restate any conditions from earlier permissions that continue to have effect. [name] have no evidence before me regarding the status of the remaining conditions attached to the original permission, I have reimposed those that I consider still applicable. Should any of these conditions have already been discharged, that is a matter that the parties can resolve.

I now turn to Condition 12. Although the application subject of this appeal sought to vary this condition, and the application form notes that this would be through the submission of revised driveway details, my assessment is that the condition itself relates specifically to the submission of a landscaping scheme. It does not require details of access arrangements, boundary walling or the general layout of the site. Moreover, the landscaping information before me is limited. I am therefore of the view that this condition is still necessary in providing landscaping changes and is acceptable in planning terms. I have therefore retained this condition.

Comments have been submitted by interested parties on matters extending beyond the main issue of this appeal. In particular, concerns have been raised regarding the impact of the amendments on parking, especially during school drop‐off and pick‐up times, where the introduction of an additional access point is said to reduce the overall availability of parking space. While such periods naturally give rise to parking pressures in close proximity to any school, I am not persuaded that the presence of an access point would have such a significant effect as to result in harm to highway safety during these limited times.

It has been suggested that the boundary wall at the appeal site has been constructed using four different brick types. During my site visit, I observed that various sections of the wall did indeed differ in shade and condition. However, the overall appearance remained broadly consistent, with the newly constructed sections utilising a red heritage‐style brick. I am mindful that the historic sections have had many years to weather, unlike the recently built elements. Taking these factors into account, I do not find that the variations result in any unacceptable harm to the character or appearance of the CA.

Concern has also been raised regarding the effect of this alteration on the previously approved landscaping scheme. As noted earlier in my decision, a variation to Condition 12 was sought. However, as this condition relates specifically to the submission of a landscaping scheme rather than access arrangements, it remains in force. Any amendments to the approved landscaping scheme would therefore need to be submitted for approval and formally discharged.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should partly succeed. I will grant a new planning permission by amending the disputed conditions and restating those undisputed conditions that are still subsisting and capable of taking effect.

The development hereby permitted, including construction of the proposed vehicular access, driveway and parking area, shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: • DWG PL100H: [name] (re-utilising existing access) and including new timber front gates (dated Feb 2024) • SAL/1921/Ppsd/11 • 1132 001 A • 1132 002 A

No operations shall commence on site until a detailed [name] including tree protection measures has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Borough Council. The statement shall cover the implementation, supervision and monitoring of all temporary tree protection during the construction period including the appointment of a project arboriculturist, a work programme, and a schedule of monitoring & supervision. The method statement shall also include full details of the erection of tree protection barriers and, if required, the installation of temporary ground protection barriers in accordance with the best practice set out in ‘BS5837, Trees in Relation to design, demolition and construction – Recommendations.’ It should also take into account the movement of vehicles on site, the storage or materials, ground level changes, the excavation and storage of spoil, the location of service runs and the installation of hard surfaces. The development shall be undertaken in full compliance with the approved Statement and the approved tree protection shall be retained for the duration of the demolition and construction period. No materials, machinery or vehicles shall be stored or temporary buildings erected within the perimeter of the tree protection barriers, and no excavation work shall be undertaken within the confines of the barriers without the written approval of the Borough Council. No changes of ground level shall be made within the protected area without the written approval of the Borough Council.

No development shall take place until the applicants, or their agents or successors in title, have secured the implementation of a programme for a watching brief to be carried out during construction or excavation work on the site, by a professional archaeologist or archaeological organisation. The details of such a scheme of investigation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Borough Council also prior to the commencement of the development on the site.

No development shall take place until an [name] has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Borough Council, and the development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with recommendations/mitigation measures contained in the report.

The vehicular access, driveway and parking area shall only be constructed using a no-dig construction in accordance with the details to be previously submitted to and approved in writing by the Borough Council.

Construction of the building shall not proceed beyond damp proof course level until details of facing and roofing materials to be used on all external elevations have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Borough Council. The development shall only be undertaken in accordance with the materials so approved.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until details of the materials and method of construction to be used on the hard surfaced areas of the site have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Borough Council and the development shall only be undertaken in accordance with the materials so approved.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the vehicular access has been surfaced in a hard bound material for a distance of 5m behind the carriageway edge and provided with measures to prevent the discharge of surface water on to the public highway, and the visibility splays as shown indicatively on drawing SAL/1921/PPSD/10 have been provided. These facilities shall be retained and the area within the splays shall be kept free of all obstructions, structures or erections exceeding 1.05 metres in height for the lifetime of the development.

The development of the front boundary screen fencing/walling and means of enclosure shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details contained on the following drawing numbers: • DWG PL100H: [name] (re-utilising existing access) and including new timber front gates (dated February 2024) • [name] (dated December 2024)

Prior to the installation of external security lighting/floodlighting, details of any such lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Borough Council, together with a lux plot of the estimated illuminance. The lighting shall be installed only in accordance with the approved details.

The dwelling shall not be occupied until a landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Borough Council. The approved scheme shall be carried out in the first tree planting season following the substantial completion of the development. Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Borough Council gives written consent to any variation. `12) Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1 [name] - D of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) there shall be no enlargement or alteration of the proposed dwelling(s), and no alteration to or insertion of windows or roof lights other than those shown on the approved plans without the prior written approval of the Borough Council.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1 Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no buildings or enclosures, swimming or other pools shall be provided on the site without the prior written approval of the Borough Council.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1 Class F of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no hard surfaces shall be provided on the site other than those shown on the approved plans without the prior written approval of the Borough Council.