Appeal 6002146

Appeal A is dismissed and planning permission is refused.

Appeal B is dismissed and planning permission is refused.

Planning permission was granted for the erection of a building to provide a mixed use development including commercial uses (use class E retail & office space), 26no. one bedroom apartments with below ground car parking and external landscaping.1 I saw at my site visit that construction is underway and the building form is substantially complete.

The main issues for Appeal A are: • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, also having regard to the Keyworth Conservation Area, the Church of [name] ([name] listed building) and the Hall (a non-designated heritage asset); • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 26 and No 27 Woodleigh with particular regard to outdoor space; and • The effect of the proposal on the highway safety of the area with particular regard to car parking.

The application which is the subject of appeal B was submitted to enable alterations to the consented layout of the building to accommodate the proposals under Appeal A. Additional alterations to the garden arrangements for Apartment 4 are not disputed and I see no reason to disagree. Consequently, the main issue in Appeal B is whether the alterations proposed to the approved scheme would enable an acceptable form of development having regard to my findings on Appeal A.

The appellant has submitted a [name] which contains obligations securing financial contributions towards healthcare and swimming pool facilities.

The appellant has submitted details of a previous planning application for a larger development on the appeal site which was withdrawn. The Council also refer to this proposal in its statement of case. However, I have considered the development only on the basis of the plans before me regarding the current proposal.

The appeal site is located near the centre of Keyworth, a large village. The Keyworth Conservation Area (CA) covers a large part of the historic core where buildings are mainly sited at the back edge of the footway and are predominantly two storeys in height constructed of red brick, some of which have been painted, all of which give an enclosed feel to the area. [name] (the Church) sits at the northern end of [address] where the buildings open out to a square. Here the buildings are less tight knit and open space contributes positively to the area. Consequently, the significance of the CA is related to its domestic scale architecture, with surviving listed buildings and their relationship to the street pattern demonstrating historic origins and the evolution of the settlement.

The Church is a [name] listed building originating from the fourteenth century with later additions, notably the fifteenth century tower with spire. Its significance is 1 22/01182/FUL (the original planning permission) largely derived from its surviving architectural and historic interest as an early example of an ecclesiastical building and its position and importance in the evolution of the village. The church is set in spacious grounds at an elevated level to the street forming its immediate setting. It forms a focal point in the village where it dominates the end of [address] and the square within which it sits. Its distinctive tower is visible from further afield as a term of reference for the centre of the village and denoting the importance of the religious building in the history of the village.

The Hall is a non-designated heritage asset (the NDHA) sited to the immediate north of the appeal site. Constructed in 1768 it forms a two storey detached building. It is a former chapel or meeting house erected for an independent congregation with roots in the farming community. A car park to the north was the former burial ground. The building is now rendered and has replacement windows. Its significance is largely derived from its historic interest as a previous place of worship with associated burial ground.

The appeal site is sited to the north west of the church and is visible in a number of views of it. It contains a large building on the corner of [address] and [address] which is contained within the existing built form, within this urbanised area. It forms a focal corner building which integrates well within its surroundings contributing positively to the CA and preserving the significance of the Church and the Hall.

The proposal would see an additional storey on the building to facilitate the provision of eight apartments. While it would be set in from the edge of the building, it would nonetheless increase the height and massing of the building by a significant amount. Irrespective of any effect on the heritage assets, the additional storey on this prominent corner building would result in a building considerably higher than most surrounding buildings leading it to be an obtrusive addition which would fail to integrate satisfactorily with the predominant domestic scale of architecture. The use of different materials would reinforce the additional height of the building. [name] accept that due to the setback, the windows may not be viewed in a continuous vertical line, the visuals supplied with the appeal show the proportions would be visible. They would be discordant with those on the existing upper floors with which they would be immediately viewed. All of these matters reinforce the visibility of the additional storey and as such it would harm the character and appearance of the area and fail to preserve or enhance the CA harming its significance.

It would be a dominant feature which would draw the eye leading it to compete with the Church as the focal point of the built form harming its significance. I accept that the relationship between the two buildings would not be visible at all times. I saw at my site visit that from much of [address], at certain places along [address] and [address] there are no direct views, either due to intervening buildings or landscaping. However, as the Square is approached the relationship would be very visible and marked, to the detriment of the Church. This is reinforced by the increase in land level along [address] to the east, so that the awkward relationship between the two would be particularly prominent.

The Townscape Appraisal in the Keyworth Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan and the Keyworth Neighbourhood Plan highlight key views. Although the appeal site is not sited within a specific line of view, it is clear that it is views of the Church particularly from [address] and [address] that are important, and it is here that the harmful effects I have identified would be the most apparent.

I noted the health centre building which is of a similar height to the proposal. However, that is set back from the road frontage. Although it can be seen in views of the Church from [address], its recessive roof form means that it is not overly obtrusive, blending in with the existing built form. Hence it does not compete with the Church. In contrast, the proposal would be blocky and of a colour which, together, would lead to a massing that would be obvious above the existing building, emphasising its increased height creating an awkward addition which would not sit comfortably on the well-designed building below.

Although the proposal would result in a building projecting above the Hall, harm would primarily be caused by the resultant conflict and dominance over the two storey building, even though the third storey would be recessed. Its history would still be understood and as I have found that is the primary contribution to its significance, I am satisfied that would be preserved.

I have had regard to the [name] which states that roofscapes can offer a contrast with something new. I agree. However, the form of development proposed here would not be sympathetic to local character and history.

The harm caused to the Church and the CA would be less than substantial. However, given that the Church is an asset of the highest order I find that that harm would be at the mid-point of the spectrum of less than substantial.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area including the [name] and would harm the significance of the Church. It would therefore be in conflict with Policy 11 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 1: [name] 2014 (the [name]) and Policy 1, 11 and 28 of the Rushcliffe Local Plan Part 2: Land and Planning Policies 2019 (the Local Plan). Together these require that the scale, density, height, massing, design, layout and materials of the proposal is sympathetic to the character and appearance of the neighbouring buildings and the surrounding area and that heritage assets are conserved and/or enhanced in line with their interest and significance.

To the west of the appeal site is a development of small bungalows. Some back onto the development and have rear windows and small gardens close to the boundary with the appeal site. In particular the gardens to No 26 and No 27 are in direct line with the building. I saw that these contained sitting out areas and were well tended.

The existing building is high and is near to the boundary with these gardens and will no doubt be highly visible from them. Due to the recess from the edge of the building the extra storey is unlikely to be particularly visible from the gardens given the proximity. However, the increase in height of the part of the building which provides access to the new storey would be highly visible from the gardens. It would be a dominant feature which would enclose the gardens to an unacceptable degree, resulting in an overbearing presence and a poor level of outlook for users of the gardens to the detriment of their living conditions.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the living conditions of No 26 and No 27 Woodleigh with particular regard to outdoor space. Consequently, it would conflict with Policy 1 of the Local Plan. This requires that development should not be overbearing in relation to neighbouring properties.

The original planning permission was for 26 one bed apartments and provided 26 car parking spaces in the basement, of which 14 spaces were allocated to the apartments, 8 spaces to commercial use and 4 spaces to car share. Details of the car share scheme have subsequently been agreed through the discharge of a planning condition imposed on the original planning permission.

The Nottinghamshire Highway Design Guide requires that one bedroom dwellings should be provided with a minimum of 1 parking space per dwelling plus unallocated visitor parking at a rate of 1 in 3 dwellings. Accordingly, the proposed additional 8 apartments would require a further 11 spaces.

The submitted layout plan proposes 16 residential spaces, 8 commercial spaces and 4 car-share spaces. Although 2 of the car share spaces are undersized, the appellant advises that the car share cars would be small and therefore the spaces would be of an appropriate size. I see no reason to disagree.

However, there would still be a significant shortfall in the required number of spaces to be provided on site. I saw at my site visit that the area around the appeal site is subject to parking restriction in the form of double yellow lines. However, parking is available further along [address] and [address] and I was able to park easily. Even though that was only a snap shot in time, I have seen no substantive evidence to demonstrate that on street parking is at capacity or causing harm to highway safety.

More importantly, I saw that Keyworth has a number of shops, services and facilities including health care and a school within easy walking distance of the appeal site. Furthermore, there is a bus stop also within walking distance with a regular service further afield and to supermarkets. I note the comments of the Highway Authority that in its opinion residents would still need a car to access services further afield and indeed for employment opportunities there may be a need to travel further. However, in my view the appeal site is located in an accessible area for services and facilities as well as bus services which could be used to access services further away. This would mean that access to a car would not be vital for day to day living. Therefore a reduction in car parking spaces can be supported, especially as there is an agreed car share facility.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposal will not cause harm to highway safety with particular regard to parking. While there would be conflict with Policy 1 of the Local Plan in that parking has not been provided in accordance with advice provided by the Highway Authority, a means of access is provided that does not cause harm to highway safety or amenity. In addition I am satisfied that there would not be an unacceptable impact on highway safety as a result of the reduced level of car parking in accordance with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

I have found that the proposal under Appeal A would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, heritage assets and the living conditions of neighbouring residents drawing it into conflict with the development plan as a whole.

It would provide eight apartments, diversifying the range of accommodation available in an accessible location which would be a significant contribution to housing land supply. Furthermore, it would constitute an efficient use of land. Together with the economic benefits of construction jobs and the spend of occupiers in the local economy these benefits would be significant. Contributions towards healthcare and swimming pool facilities attract minor weight.

However, in my view taken together the benefits would not be sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight I give to the harm to the significance of the heritage assets either individually or combined.

Consequently, there are no material considerations, including the Framework which would outweigh the conflict with the development plan. Accordingly appeal A is dismissed.

It therefore follows that, as I have found that the proposal under Appeal A is unacceptable, then it has not been demonstrated that the proposal under appeal B would enable an acceptable development then it too must fail. As a result Appeal B is dismissed.