Appeal 6001960

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 issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Astwith Conservation Area (ACA).

The appeal site is located within the small rural settlement of Astwith. As outlined in the [name] and Management Plan (2010), the ACA derives its significance from its picturesque rural setting, its historic association with the [name] and its settlement pattern, centred on traditional farmsteads, with some later, low-density infill development. The ACA contains a notable collection of vernacular farmhouses, cottages and agricultural buildings, many of which preserve traditional materials and architectural detailing. Hedgerows, mature boundary trees and the widespread use of local stone contribute to its character, while a network of public footpaths reinforces the strong relationship between the settlement and its countryside surroundings.

[site address] is accessed via a track from [site address] and sits within a group of former agricultural buildings, identified by the Council as unlisted buildings of merit. The appeal property, consistent with its neighbours, retains defining characteristics of the ACA including its stone construction and gabled, slate roof. Although the appeal property and other buildings in this group have been extended and altered over time, their agricultural origins remain legible. Consequently, these buildings make a positive contribution to the historic rural character of the area and, in doing so, to the significance of the ACA.

While sensitive matching materials would be used, the proposed extension, due to its scale and siting on the front elevation of the property, would nevertheless form a visually dominant addition that would detract from the simple and traditional form of [site address] . Even accounting for the previous extension to the property, the proposal would erode the ability to understand and appreciate the building’s previous use as an agricultural building. Its crenelated roof design would also appear particularly incongruous and would jar with the traditional form of the host building, that of neighbouring properties, and the prevailing form of development in the wider ACA.

I acknowledge that the appeal site occupies a somewhat secluded position at the end of the track and that boundary vegetation would offer some screening of the extension, which could improve over time. Even so, a lack of visibility does not negate the need for good design that responds to its surroundings. Partial views of the development would also still be likely to be possible from the adjacent footpath from both the track itself, where it meets the stile, as well as from within the neighbouring field which the footpath crosses over. All in all, the proposed extension by virtue of its siting, scale, and design would represent a harmful addition to the host dwelling that would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the ACA.

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Given the scale and nature of the proposal, the harm to the significance of the ACA would be at the lower end of less than substantial having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Framework requires that this harm should be weighed against any public benefits deriving from the proposal. I recognise the economic benefit associated with construction activity and the social benefit of providing accessible accommodation. Given the scale of the development proposed, these benefits would be modest in degree and insufficient to outweigh the harm to the heritage asset.

Consequently, the proposed development would neither preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the ACA. It would therefore conflict with policies SS9, SC3, SC16 and SC21 of the Local Plan for Bolsover District (2020) which require that development in the countryside respect the form, scale and character of the landscape; achieve high quality of design; preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the area and its setting; and alterations and additions respect the character, appearance and setting of local heritage assets.

I do not know the planning circumstances or the development plan policies that applied at the time of the consideration of some more contemporary development in Astwith referred to by the appellant. That said, from what I saw, extensions to properties do not share the same siting or discordant design as the appeal scheme, nor do the host properties make a directly comparable positive contribution to the character and appearance of the ACA as [site address] . Accordingly, and notwithstanding some variety in the surrounding built form, these examples would not lead me to reach a different conclusion in this case.

I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. Disability is a protected characteristic to which the PSED applies. I have also had regard to rights conveyed within the Human Rights Act.

The proposal has been designed to provide an accessible ground floor washroom facility for the appellant, who is disabled. This is a matter of importance to which I afford considerable weight. However, and in this instance, the development proposed would be permanent and remain indefinitely regardless of the needs of future occupiers. It is also unclear as to whether the same outcome could not be met by other, potentially less harmful, means. Therefore, the harms I have identified are such that a dismissal of the appeal would be a proportionate and necessary response that would not be outweighed by the requirements of the PSED.

The Framework confirms, amongst other things, that the development plan is the starting point for decision making and where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan, permission should not usually be granted.

The proposal would be contrary to the development plan and the material considerations in this instance do not justify a decision other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, 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.