Appeal 6001758

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Derbyshire Dales District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The original planning permission1 for the erection of a dwelling and associated works was granted in April 2024 and included a condition (No.2) requiring the approved development to be carried out in accordance with the plans listed. This condition was necessary for the avoidance of doubt. The appellant submitted a Section 73 (S73) application to vary condition No.2, seeking consent for an alternative layout and design for the proposed dwelling. This S73 application was refused by the Council and is the subject of this appeal.

The planning application form does not include a postcode for the appeal site address. However, the appeal form does provide a postcode and I have included this within the above banner heading. 1 Council Ref: 23/00885/FUL

The appeal site lies within the [site address] Conservation Area (CA) and in accordance with the statutory duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

The appeal site is also located within the setting of the Grade II Listed Building at the junction of [name] and [address]. In determining this appeal I have a statutory duty, under Section 66(1) of the Act, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of this listed building, and any features of special architectural and historic interest.

[name] note the Historic England Official list entry name of this nearby listed building is [name], both parties refer to it as [address] throughout their submissions. In the interests of clarity, I have referred to this listed building as [address] within this decision letter.

The main issues are the effect of the proposal on: • the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to its effect upon the CA and whether the setting of the nearby listed [address] would be preserved; and • highway safety.

The CA is located within a wider rural landscape comprising of open fields, rolling hills, trees and hedgerows. The CA covers a relatively large area, including the village core and areas of the rural countryside which surround it.

I observed on site that the significance of the CA is in part derived from its narrow lanes and the tight clusters of attractive, stone buildings, mainly dating from the 18th and 19th centuries. Whilst there are examples of some 20th century properties, including two dormer dwellings adjacent to the appeal site, the buildings within the CA predominantly have a humble, organic and vernacular character and appearance, with a high solid to void ratio within their elevations.

I found the traditional design and character of these buildings positively contributes to the significance of the CA as a whole and this is highlighted in the [site address] Conservation Area Character Appraisal (KICACA) which details how the village has a core of traditional buildings which provide historic character and context. The KICACA also highlights the strong sense of visual integrity provided by construction methods and materials.

During my visit I also observed that glimpses of the wider countryside beyond the existing built development are afforded from within the village, particularly views to the east where the land slopes down. Views out from the settlement are also identified in the KICACA as contributing to the area’s special interest. Furthermore, I found the existing green and verdant setting of the land surrounding this tightly developed village distinguishes the built development from the surrounding rural activities and further contributes to the significance of the CA.

The appeal relates to a parcel of land covered in overgrown vegetation, situated at the southeastern end of the village, on the western side of [address]. Due to the natural sloping topography of the area the appeal site is raised up above this highway, with the properties on the opposite side of the lane positioned lower down. The appeal site itself has a sloping gradient which rises away from the highway towards a Public Right of Way (PRoW) and residential properties positioned on the higher land to the west.

The site’s boundary fronting onto the highway is defined by a low stone wall and a mature hedge, and a hedge also defines its western boundary shared with the raised PRoW. I found the site’s green and undeveloped nature assists in creating an openness along this section of [address], at the edge of the village. The undeveloped appeal site therefore assists in the transition between the built development within the village and rural landscape beyond, and makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA.

To the south of the appeal site is the [address] which according to the listing description is a former school built in the early 19th Century. This two-storey, gritstone property has four bays and occupies a prominent position at the junction of [name] and [address], with its front elevation facing out of the village towards Ecclesbourne valley. I found that the appeal site currently provides a sense of space and openness to the north of this listed building and this contributes to the visual prominence of this listed building when entering the village from the south.

A defining feature of this listed building is its gothic inspired cast metal windows, with depressed pointed arched heads above, as well as the three crosses located between the ground and first floor windows. I found these features to be of architectural interest, and they collectively contribute to the aesthetic significance of this designated heritage asset.

The erection of a proposed dwelling, along with associated works, on this undeveloped site would inevitably result in the loss of some of its green and open character. However, the principle of erecting a dwelling on this site has already been established through the original permission and this is a significant material consideration.

Nevertheless, the proposed dwelling would have an elongated footprint and front elevation facing onto the highway of [address]. This is in part created by the inclusion of the car port feature with a first-floor above, as well as the setting of the single-storey side section flush with the front elevation of the main two-storey element of the dwelling. The resulting elongated shape, size and form of the proposal would be out of keeping with that of other buildings fronting this highway, as well as other buildings within the village in general.

In addition, the proposed dwelling’s fenestration detailing would be of a more modern and contemporary design, with little reference to the simpler and more modest local tradition, which is part of the architectural character of this area. I find the varying designs, proportions and sizes of the proposed openings lacks the consistency and hierarchy commonly found within other properties throughout the CA.

This is demonstrated in the front elevation through the inclusion of a modern glazed front entrance door with a glazed panel to the side and the set of glazed patio doors with full length windows either side, as well as the proposed first-floor corner window. These features are overtly modern and, together with the other varying designs of window openings in this elevation, create an uncharacteristic complex front elevation that would be at odds with the traditional, modest and vernacular character of other properties which contribute to the significance of the CA.

Furthermore, the proposed open car port area beneath a section of the first-floor would represent an alien feature that is not typically observed elsewhere within the CA. In coming to this view, I note that the appellant has drawn my attention to the garages at the adjacent properties. These adjacent properties, with garages, are however largely an exception within the village and do not represent the more traditional and predominant building style.

In any case, I observed that these garages are located below the main floor level of the dwellings and are partially obscured by garden walls to the front. As such, I did not find them to be directly comparable to, or as visually prominent as, the proposed car port which would be a prominent feature within the proposed dwelling.

I also find the level of openings in the front elevation creates a higher void to solid ratio which would be out of keeping with that generally found within other buildings throughout the village.

Additionally, the design of the proposed chimney, attached to, and protruding from, the gable elevation would also be out of keeping with the style and design of other chimneys I observed in the CA, which were largely set flush with the gable elevation, or set within the roof.

Overall therefore, I find the size, shape, form and design of the proposed dwelling would be harmfully out of keeping with the traditional design and character of the vernacular buildings which currently make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of this area, and the significance of the CA. The proposal would therefore not protect the character, appearance and integrity of the CA, or reflect its distinct identity.

In terms of the impact of the appeal proposal on the significance of the [address]. [name] acknowledge that the proposed dwelling would come closer to this listed building than the previously approved dwelling, I find the proposed gap is sufficient to retain an open aspect and space between this listed building and the proposed dwelling.

Furthermore, the proposed dwelling would be set at a lower land level than this listed building. As such, given the gap that would be provided, and the difference in land levels, I find that the proposal would not compete with this listed building in terms of its prominence and dominance within the village.

Consequently, I find the proposed development would have a neutral effect upon this listed building and its significance as a designated heritage asset would not be harmed by the proposed development within its setting. The proposal would also preserve its features of special architectural and historic interest.

Nevertheless, for the reasons given earlier, I find that the appeal proposal would have a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the area, and it would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 213 of the Framework states that any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification.

In this regard, I am aware of the previous approval for a dwelling on the appeal site and the appellant’s claim that to implement that approval significant engineering works, including large retaining walls measuring 5m high and 18m in length, would be required. As part of this appeal the appellant has included some annotated drawings showing the extent of these retaining walls and claims that the visual impact of this would be more harmful than the appeal proposal. The appellant’s submission however admits that the extent of these engineering works and retaining walls were not illustrated on the previously approved plan, resulting in a misleading impression of the approved scheme’s impact.

There is however no substantive evidence before me to suggest that the engineering works and retaining walls annotated on the plans provided as part of the appeal submission have been approved by the Council and this therefore limits the weight I can attribute to them.

If the previously approved development cannot be implemented without significant engineering works and retaining walls, that are not illustrated on the previously approved plans, then this would be a matter for the appellant to address directly with the Council. The extent and impact of the engineering works and retaining walls required to implement the previously approved application are not matters for me to resolve as part of my determination of this appeal scheme.

Consequently, I do not find that the appellant’s claim in relation to the required engineering works and retaining walls provide clear and convincing justification for the identified harm that would be caused from the proposed development to the significance of the CA.

In view of all the above, I have found that the significance of the listed building known as the [address] would not be harmed by this proposed development within its setting.

However, I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area and would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA as a whole, with the level of harm being at the middle to lower end of that spectrum. Nevertheless, mindful of my statutory duty, I give this harm considerable importance and weight.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires that where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

In this regard, the Council can currently demonstrate a 1.36 year supply of deliverable housing sites and I consider this shortfall to be substantial. Nevertheless, I find the public benefits arising from the delivery of one additional dwelling would be modest.

Public economic benefits would arise from the proposal, including contributions to the local economy during the construction phase of the development. These however would be short term benefits. Further economic benefits would also arise from additional spending in the area by future occupants of the dwelling. Cumulatively, given the scale of development the economic support to the area arising from the appeal proposal would be relatively small. I therefore attach limited weight in respect of the economic benefits.

The proposal would also provide the opportunity to increase biodiversity on the appeal site. However, given the scale of the development site, I attribute these public environmental benefits limited weight in favour of the proposal.

As such, when taken together, I find that the above-mentioned public benefits do not outweigh the considerable importance and weight I must attach to the harm, and the special attention that I must pay to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

In view of all the above, I conclude that the appeal proposal would preserve the significance of the nearby listed building. However, for the reasons given, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

The proposal would therefore conflict with policies S1, S4, S9, PD1, PD2 and PD5 of the Adopted Derbyshire Dales Local Plan (2017) (LP), as well as Policies P1, P2 and P3 of the [site address] Derbyshire Neighbourhood Plan (2021). These policies together seek to ensure, amongst other things, that development proposals conserve and protect the historic environment and heritage assets appropriate to their significance; demonstrate particular attention to the KICACA and take account of the local distinctive character and setting of the CA; secure high-quality design that respects the character, identity and context of townscapes; and contribute positively to an area’s character, history and identity in terms of scale, layout and appearance.

The proposal would also fail to satisfy the relevant sections of the Framework and the requirements of the Act.

The Council second reason for refusal on the decision notice states that insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that adequate space is available for vehicles to manoeuvre so that they can safely enter and exit the site in forward gear.

My attention has however been drawn to an amended plan2 which shows the proposed hardstanding area within the site, together with swept path analysis demonstrating that vehicles could manoeuvre within the site to enable them to enter and leave the site in forward gear.

Furthermore, I note that the County Highway Authority have provided further comments as part of the appeal, stating that subject to this amended plan being 2 Proposed Site Plan – 2430 03 referenced on any allowed appeal, they would have no objection to the proposal on highway safety grounds.

Consequently, based on the details shown on the amended plan, my observations on site, and having regard to the updated comments from the County Highway Authority, I conclude that the proposed development could be safely accessed and would not have a harmful impact upon highway safety. The proposal therefore complies with LP Policy HC19 where it requires that development proposals are safely accessed.

I also find no conflict with paragraph 116 of the Framework where it states that development should only be prevented on highways grounds if there would be an unnacceptable impact on highway safety.

As mentioned, I am cognisant that there is an extant permission for the erection of a dwelling on this site and this fallback position is a material consideration.

However, based on the approved plans before me, I find the fallback scheme represents a more sympathetic development within the CA, as a result of its size, shape, form, design and more traditional appearance. The fallback scheme is therefore not comparable to the current appeal scheme which, for the reasons given earlier, I find would harm the character and appearance of the area, and would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

As such, owing to my earlier raised concerns, I find that the appeal proposal would have a more harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the area, and the CA, than the fallback scheme. Accordingly, I afford the appellant’s fallback position limited weight in favour of the proposal.

The appellant has drawn my attention to pre-application discussions that took place with the Council and has made comments relating to procedural concerns in respect of the Council’s handling of the planning application. These matters are covered in my costs decision letter and are not determinative in my consideration of the appeal scheme before me.

I note the appellant has referred to what they perceived to be inaccurate comments made by interested parties and Council Officer’s at Planning Committee. I have however determined the appeal based on the submitted evidence before me and any discussions that took place at Planning Committee have therefore not been determinative in my consideration of the appeal proposal.

The appellant has also suggested that the concerns raised by the Council are not fundamental and could be addressed through design changes if the Council had engaged in discussions. It is however for me to determine this appeal based on the plans before me.

The appellant has referred to Inspectors consistently confirming that where an authority lacks a five-year supply of housing, heritage must be balanced against the wider presumption in favour of development and has quoted two appeal decisions3.

Whilst each application must be determined on its own merits and based on the facts of that case, the appellant has not provided copies of these appeal decision letters and I have been unable to find them based on the reference numbers provided. Consequently, I can attribute them no weight in my determination of this appeal.

I note that Policy HC1 of the LP is referenced in the Council’s reason for refusal relating to character and appearance. This policy however relates to the principle of housing development having regard to its location and does not specifically relate to character and appearance. It is therefore not determinative in relation to this matter. Furthermore, the Council’s delegated report and statement of case raise no objection to the principle of the residential development of this site and acknowledge there is an extant permission for a dwelling on this site.

As mentioned, the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites and consequently paragraph 11(d) of the Framework applies. However, for the reasons detailed within this decision, the aforementioned harm to the CA provides a strong reason for refusing the development in accordance with paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework. As such, the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the Framework.

Overall, I find that the proposal would not have a harmful impact upon highway safety and it would preserve the significance of the nearby listed building. However, I conclude that the proposed development would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area in general.

The proposal therefore conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, to suggest the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed.