Appeal 6002417

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area with particular reference to the setting of nearby listed buildings; • the effect of the proposal on arboricultural interests; • the effect of the proposal on highway safety; and • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and development plan policies.

The appeal site contains the [name] listed [site address] and is situated next to the [name] listed [address] Cottages. S66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) places a statutory duty on decision makers to have special regard to preserving the setting of listed buildings.

[site address] dates from the eighteenth century. It is timber framed and plastered, with a half hipped tiled roof and off centre chimney, and small paned casement windows. It is likely to have been a pair of farm labourer’s cottages1 which were joined together and substantially extended in the twentieth century. 1 Heritage Impact Statement prepared by [name] & Conservation Both it and [address] Cottages were originally in the ownership of the [name] estate. The list entry recognises the good group value of the cottages.

[address] Cottages date originally from the sixteenth century or earlier, with eighteenth century alterations. The cottages are timber framed and part plastered/part weatherboarded, with a half hipped tiled roof and three chimney stacks. They have small paned casement and dormer windows. Originally there would have been three cottages, which have been combined into two.

[site address] and [address] Cottages form a cohesive grouping of historic buildings bounded on two sides by roads and at the rear by open countryside. Although their setting has evolved over time with the recent construction of a housing estate opposite, the estate is set back from [address] behind an open, landscaped frontage. The cottages retain much of the character of rural dwellings located in the countryside, aided by their open setting to the rear and the mature planting along much of their frontage. The intended location of the annexe is within the garden of [site address] and consequently it forms part of its setting, and contributes to the significance of both [site address] and [address] Cottages.

The proposed annexe outbuilding would be located to the side of [site address] and separated from it by its existing driveway. Although single storey in height, it would be located on higher ground than [site address] . The size of the annexe combined with its elevated position would result in it being overlarge for an outbuilding, and consequently it would not be perceived as an ancillary structure but would instead compete visually with the group of cottages. Its physical impact would therefore be greater than the collective impact of the existing outbuildings it would replace, and it would risk creating the impression that the property had been subdivided. The annexe’s impact would be exacerbated by being angled towards the driveway, meaning it would be visible from public land from which it would be insufficiently screened. Where currently [site address] maintains a strong visual link to the open countryside, the annexe would interrupt it in a way that the smaller outbuildings do not currently.

I consequently find that the proposal would result in a moderate degree of less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets, to which I attach considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that in such circumstances, the harm to designated heritage assets should be weighed against the public benefits.

The removal of the existing outbuildings would improve the setting of [site address] to a limited extent, especially when approaching the site from the north, which can be considered a public benefit. The proposed car parking arrangements, which I address below, would improve on-site turning facilities for vehicles and thereby reduce the likelihood of vehicles having to reverse out onto [address], offering a benefit in highway safety terms. The proposal would provide tailored living accommodation for a family member which in turn would free up the host property for occupation by younger family members. However, I consider that the harm to the designated heritage assets outweighs these benefits.

I recognise the efforts made the appellant to respond to the previous refusal for a larger, more centrally located annexe2. These have included moving the annexe further from [site address] , reducing its size, simplifying its form to a linear 2 LPA reference EPF/2521/24 shape, and using traditional materials and windows. The siting of the annexe maximises the benefit of the existing natural screening along the site frontage. However, these factors do not outweigh the harm which I have identified to the setting of [site address] and also to [address] Cottages by reason of their historic association with [site address] .

I therefore conclude that the proposal would fail to meet the requirements of the Act as it would not preserve or enhance the setting of the nearby listed buildings, and for this reason it would harm the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. As a result, the proposal would be contrary to policies DM7 and DM9 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan 2011-2033 [name] 2023 (EFDLP), which together seek to preserve the settings of heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance, and to encourage a high quality of design which contributes to the distinctive character and amenity of the local area.

Whilst no trees are shown for removal, part of the proposed annexe and its hardstanding would be within the root protection area of a tree close to the front boundary of the site. The appellant’s previous tree protection plan identified it as a [name] plum tree of low quality. Despite its relatively modest size, the tree provides screening from [address], and is shown for retention on the appellant’s plans. Without an assessment of the likely impact of the proposal on the tree’s root system, it is not possible to conclude with confidence that the tree could be retained with being damaged. Protection measures for this and other trees on the site would also need to be set out.

I therefore find that the proposal would not adequately protect arboricultural interests, contrary to Policy DM5 of the EFDLP, which requires development proposals to retain and where possible enhance existing green infrastructure assets including trees, and to provide sufficient tree protection measures.

The appeal site is currently served by a driveway capable of accommodating approximately four cars and a single garage. In front of the site’s boundary hedge is an informal layby where cars can pull off [address]. The proposal seeks to retain the driveway but not the garage, and to introduce two car parking spaces in front of the proposed annexe, with the existing driveway functioning in future as a turning facility.

Whilst the proposal would reduce the number of cars which could park on site, it would create space for cars to turn on site and leave in a forward gear. Currently it appears that cars either have to reverse in or out of the driveway, or attempt to turn on site providing the remainder of the driveway is clear. The proposal to create two parking spaces and a turning area seems to me to offer tangible benefits in terms of highway safety, and it follows that the reduction in onsite parking is an acceptable given that the property would remain as a single planning unit, with only a moderate likelihood of an increase in vehicle numbers.

[name] minded to allow the appeal, the Council’s concern about the proximity of the proposed parking bays to walls/fences could be addressed through the imposition of a condition requiring the submission and approval of an amended parking layout. In this way, conformity with the Essex Parking Guidance 2024 could be achieved.

I conclude that the proposal would make appropriate provision for onsite car parking and turning facilities, and as such would not compromise highway safety. The proposal would accord with Policy T1 of the EFDLP, which guides that development will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that it does not compromise highway safety.

The site is in the Green Belt. The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The Framework further establishes that development in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, subject to a number of exceptions set out in paragraphs 154 and 155.

Paragraph 154(d) of the Framework allows for the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. Whilst paragraph 154(d) refers to the replacement of a singular building, the same approach is applicable when replacing more than one building. The site contains a number of outbuildings which, although not benefitting from planning permission, appear to date back a number of years. All of them, except a workshop, would be demolished. Although the existing outbuildings are used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse, whilst the proposal is for an ancillary building for occupation by a family member, the primary use of the land as a dwellinghouse would not change. The proposal therefore satisfies the first part of paragraph 154(d).

The appellant has calculated that the floor area of the proposed annexe would be 21% smaller than the combined floor area of the outbuildings to be demolished. [name] have not been provided with a breakdown of the calculation, and so for example it is unclear whether the lean-to structure attached to the garage has been included, I am nonetheless satisfied that the footprint of the proposed annexe would not be larger than the existing outbuildings combined. The annexe would be single storey and comparable in height with the various existing outbuildings. Whilst consolidating the existing outbuildings in one location would result in a more prominent building, the proposed annexe would not be materially larger than the existing outbuildings, and would thereby satisfy the second part of paragraph 154(d).

I therefore find that the proposal complies with paragraph 154(d) of the Framework, and is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the policies in the Framework. There is consequently no need for me to consider the proposal under criteria (e) and (g) of paragraph 154 or against the criteria in paragraph 155 of the Framework.

The proposal would accord with Policy DM4 of the EFDLP, which guides that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate development in the Green Belt unless one of a number of exceptions applies, one of which is the replacement of a building provided the building is of the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces.

I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty set out under the Equality Act 2010, which identifies both age and disability as protected characteristics. Positive discrimination on the basis of age can encompass the provision of accommodation for the elderly, whilst the removal of environmental barriers by making reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities is an inclusive approach. The proposal would provide living accommodation for an older family member who is not in good health and will require accommodation in the near future with level access where a carer can also live. [site address] itself cannot provide this.

It is a positive consideration that the proposal would provide accommodation tailored to the appellant’s future needs. Other benefits include the removal of outbuildings and improvements to highway safety. However, the harms I have identified and the resultant conflict with the development plan outweigh these benefits, and it is therefore proportionate and necessary to dismiss the appeal.

For the above reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan, when read as a whole. Material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.