Appeal 6001726

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by the appellant against the Council. This is the subject of a separate decision.

Planning permission was granted in 1974 for extensions to the dining room and hall of the appeal property. This permission included a condition requiring planning permission to be sought for any further enlargement, improvement or other alteration to the dwelling (hereon referred to as the disputed condition).

The Council consider the disputed condition necessary to preserve the character and appearance of the area, the appeal property and its significance as a non-designated heritage asset. The appellant, however, objects to the condition, as he considers it to no longer be relevant due to further extensions that have taken place at the appeal property since planning permission was granted for the dining room and hall extensions in 1974.

The main issues in this appeal are, therefore, whether the condition is reasonable and necessary to preserve the character and appearance of the area, the appeal property and its significance as a non-designated heritage asset.

Paragraph 55 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so.

The appeal property is a detached dwelling set on a moderate sized plot close to the junction of [address] and [address]. It is recorded on the Solihull Local List of Heritage Assets and, as such, the Council considers it a non-designated heritage asset. This is not disputed by the appellant.

Paragraph 216 of the Framework sets out that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. It goes on to explain that in weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

From the evidence before me and my observations on site, the significance of the appeal property derives from its architectural value and historic interest, which together give it a distinct character. The property sits comfortably within its plot and retains key historic characteristics, including its simple winged form, front gables, traditional materials, pitched dormers and chimney stack. Notwithstanding later additions, the form of the house as it stood in 1973 remains clearly legible.

Although the appearance of the appeal property has changed since permission was granted in 1974 for extensions to the dining room and hall, these changes have not altered its character to any significant degree. Subsequent additions have been reasonably modest, broadly follow the form of the 1973 house and respect its historic features. As a result, the integrity of the historic dwelling remains evident and the disputed condition has, to date, achieved its intended purpose of preserving the appeal property’s character and appearance. Overall, I consider the appeal property, in its current form, to possess moderate architectural and historic significance

The removal of the disputed condition would permit certain forms of development, including enlargement, improvement or alteration of the appeal property, under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended) (GPDO). [name] recognise that many non-designated heritage assets and other dwellings in the area benefit from such rights, in this instance there is a tangible risk that even modest works would harm the character and appearance of the appeal property and, consequently, its integrity and significance, depending on their siting and form.

Accordingly, removing the disputed condition could result in forms of development that would cause appreciable harm to the significance of the appeal property. This type of development would conflict with Policies P15 and P16 of the Solihull Local Plan Shaping a [name] (2013) (Local Plan). These policies seek to ensure that all development proposals achieve good quality, inclusive and sustainable design by, among other things, conserving and enhancing local character and distinctiveness, and respecting the historic environment.

Therefore, in the interests of preserving the character and appearance of the appeal property and its significance as a non-designated heritage asset, I find that the disputed condition is necessary and reasonable.

The Council’s reason for refusal also cites harm to the character of the area. However, notwithstanding my findings above, I consider that development carried out in accordance with the conditions and limitations of the GPDO would not harm the rural, spacious and verdant character of the wider area. The disputed condition is therefore neither necessary nor reasonable in this respect.

The appellant refers to a recent planning application at the appeal site for a single storey extension to the rear, replacement porch to the front, amendments to fenestration and new raised seated terrace1, together with a subsequent application for a certificate of lawful development2, both of which were refused by the Council. However, while the design of the refused scheme was considered acceptable by the Council, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that, if the disputed condition were removed, it would represent the only permitted development available to the appellant. I can therefore only afford this limited weight in my decision.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the disputed condition is necessary and reasonable in the interests of preserving the character and appearance of the appeal property and its significance as a non-designated heritage asset. The proposed removal of the disputed condition would conflict with Policies P15 and P16 of the Local Plan and the development plan as a whole. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.