Appeal 6001855

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.

The main issues are whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Whittington Conservation Area and whether it would preserve the setting of the [name] listed building, [site address] , including the impact on protected trees.

The appeal site comprises [site address] , a three storey [name] listed building, and its gardens. It forms a pair with [address] adjacent which is part of the same listing record. The site is located within the Whittington Conservation Area (WCA). The WCA covers most of the village and is characterised by its collection of high-quality buildings, some of which are listed buildings. The traditional design and materials of the buildings make a positive contribution to the rural character of the area. The trees and landscaping in the area also contribute to a verdant appearance which is complementary to the rural character. With its high-quality architecture and landscaping, including protected trees, the appeal site makes a strong positive contribution to the character and appearance of the WCA and thus the significance of the WCA as a whole.

[site address] occupies a prominent position on [address] which is a key route through the village and WCA. Its significance is mostly derived from its impressive external appearance, most notably its striking front elevation which faces [address].

In terms of its setting, the property is set well back from the road with a brick wall around most of the front boundary. The wall and vegetation behind create a strong sense of enclosure around the contrasting mostly open landscaped space in front of the building. This front courtyard area includes several protected trees and hedging around the edges, but gives a feel of openness and space across the frontage which allows for the grand front elevation of the listed building to be appreciated from the parking area and from the footway to the front of the building.

This combination of open frontage and enclosure complement the appearance of the listed building and contribute to its sense of importance in the street scene. In that regard, the general absence of significant built form in close proximity to the front elevation, and the definition of the courtyard open space, contributes to its visual prominence and the way in which it is experienced.

The appeal property is also historically and physically associated with [address] adjacent. Its grouping with that property and other significant listed buildings in the vicinity and their prominence in the street scene further contribute to its setting. Consequently, these elements of the setting of the listed building make a notable contribution to its significance.

The proposal is for the erection of an oak framed garage with oak weatherboarding and clay roof tiles in the garden of the appeal property. Due to its siting, the garage would not be visually prominent in the WCA at present, as it would be set back behind the boundary wall and the retained vegetation. In the glimpsed views possible through the shrubs along the site’s boundary, its traditional design and materials would not stand out unduly given the rural character and appearance of the WCA, where there are other examples of timber canopies, gates, fences and windows evident near the appeal site, in the village.

However, the appellant’s Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment (AIA) indicates that the vegetation along the front boundary has a short life expectancy of less than 10 years due to its condition. In due course when that planting fails the brick wall would remain, but the height of the proposed garage would mean that parts of its roof would be far more visible from the public realm than they would currently. The use of traditional clay tiles would mitigate this visual impact to some degree, however the presence of an outbuilding in the front courtyard area would become clearly evident. In such circumstances, the garage would be a visually distracting feature which would detract from the high-quality architecture of [site address] and would thus diminish its positive contribution to the character and appearance of the WCA.

The garage would be smaller than the listed building and would not be viewed in the immediate foreground of its front elevation. However, due to its overall scale and its siting, it would appear as a bulky structure in close proximity to it. Consequently, the garage would visually distract from the front elevation of the listed building, particularly when viewed from the parking area to the front and, to a lesser extent, from the footway in views through the access on [address]. Whilst the garage would be located in part of the garden which does not provide a key view of the building, it would nevertheless be a conspicuous feature which would draw the eye in the otherwise open space in the vicinity of the front elevation of the building.

Furthermore, the proposed garage would be located in close proximity to several protected trees at the site, features which are important both in terms of their contribution to the character and appearance of the WCA, as well as to the setting of the listed building. In that regard, the AIA identifies that the proposed garage would be within the root protection areas of a Yew Tree (T6) which is a category B1 tree, as well as a Horse Chestnut Tree (T8) which is a category C1 tree.

Due to the proximity of the proposed garage to the root protection areas of these protected trees, the proposal could adversely affect the health and condition of the trees through construction and the nature of the foundations. Such harm to the protected trees would erode the verdant character and appearance of the WCA, as well as the important contribution that they make to the property’s enclosure, and therefore to the setting of the listed building.

The AIA indicates that specialist tree footings would need to be used as part of the development, to ensure no harm to the retained trees, but no details are given. Furthermore, the AIA was produced without the full details of existing and proposed new services, including details of underground apparatus and drainage systems. Given that the trees are protected and make an important positive contribution to the designated heritage assets, it would not be appropriate to leave this matter to condition, as there is insufficient information to determine whether a suitable technical solution exists to provide the required mitigation. I cannot be certain, therefore, whether the scheme as proposed could be realised without harm to the trees or whether amendments would be needed. I do not consider it reasonable to recommend a condition in these circumstances.

Furthermore, the erection of the garage would likely result in future pressure to prune the trees which would overhang the garage, particularly the horse chestnut tree which would be closest to the garage, and which has the potential to grow significantly over time. Such works would limit the contribution of the trees to the WCA compared with if they were able to grow unconstrained by development, and would add to the proposal’s harm to the WCA.

Therefore, the proposal is likely to harm the protected trees, leading to adverse impacts on their long-term health, retention and contribution to the WCA. The proposal would therefore be harmful to the verdant character and appearance of the WCA, as well as to the setting of the listed building.

Consequently, as a result of its scale and siting, the proposal would detract from the high-quality architecture of [site address] and the contribution of the protected trees, thus harming the WCA’s significance. For the same reasons, it would diminish the verdant enclosure of the listed building, the openness of the front courtyard, and the way in which this combination of features affects the way in which the building is experienced. Accordingly, it would degrade the setting of the listed building and, as a result, diminish its significance.

Having regard of the statutory duties as set out in Section 72(1) and 66(1) of the Act1, I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the 1 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 character or appearance of conservation areas and to the desirability of preserving the setting of listed buildings.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development, including its effect on protected trees, would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the WCA as a whole, resulting in harm to its significance. It would also harm the setting of [site address] , and therefore its significance.

The proposed development would also be contrary to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) that heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, and that when considering the impact of a development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. This includes their setting.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial or less than substantial harm to its significance.

Having regard to paragraph 215 of the Framework, I find that the proposed development would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets, given the limited extent of the development, and that its adverse impacts would be relatively localised to the appeal site and surroundings. Consequently, the harm would be at the lower end of the scale of less than substantial harm. Nevertheless, this is a matter which I give considerable importance and weight. Under such circumstances the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

In that regard, the appellant states that the proposal would help to secure the optimum viable use of the heritage assets. However, there is nothing before me to suggest that the residential use of the listed building is not viable now or that without the proposal the use of the listed building would be less viable in the future, particularly as another garage already exists to serve the property.

There is also no substantive evidence before me to support the claim that the proposal would sustain the curtilage structure and maintain the functionality of the curtilage of the listed building compared with the existing situation, to the extent that it would amount to a tangible public benefit.

In terms of providing a high quality and authentic rural building, for the reasons above the design and siting of the building would be harmful, therefore the quality and craftsmanship of the building itself would not be a public benefit.

There is a suggestion that if the appeal is dismissed, a modern structure would have to be built instead. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate an alternative, more harmful fallback option could be built, particularly given the restrictions on permitted development rights in the curtilage of listed buildings.

The absence of the Council’s objections on matters such as residential amenity, ecology and highways are neutral factors which do not weigh in favour of the appeal.

Overall, therefore, there are no public benefits from the proposed development of sufficient weight, either individually or cumulatively, to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the significance of the WCA and the listed building.

The proposal would therefore conflict with Core Policy 3, Core Policy 14 and Policies BE1 and NR4 of the Lichfield District Local Plan Strategy (2015), Policy BE2 of the Lichfield District Local Plan Allocations (2019) and Policies D1, D2 and HE1 of the Whittington and Fisherwick Neighbourhood Plan (made in 2018). Amongst other matters, these policies require that developments have a positive impact on the historic environment including conservation areas and listed buildings and their settings and should take advantage of local topography including trees.

The proposal would also conflict with the guidance in the Council’s Historic Environment Supplementary Planning Document (2015) and the Trees, Landscaping and Development Supplementary Planning Document (2016), which amongst other matters, advise that developments should respect local character by conserving heritage assets and integrating trees into developments. It would also conflict with the guidance in the Lichfield District Design Code Supplementary Planning Document (2024), which advises that detached garages are not permissible in conservation areas.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which would outweigh this conflict. Therefore, 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.