Appeal 6002968

The appeal is dismissed.

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

Planning permission was granted in 2017 (Ref: DC/2017/01413) to convert the existing garage into habitable accommodation. A condition was imposed to restrict the use, so that it could not become a self-contained dwelling. The conversion to habitable accommodation has already taken place and at the time of my site visit, a fence was in place separating the garage conversion from the main dwelling.

The appeal site is within the Blundellsands Park Conservation Area (CA). I have a statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the area.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including Blundellsands Park CA.

The appeal site is a large corner plot made up of a prominent main dwelling, and a detached residential annex in what was the garage. This layout and appearance results in a clear hierarchy with the detached annex building having a subordinate appearance and function in relation to the main dwelling.

The Blundellsands Park CA Appraisal (March 2008) ([name]) identifies that the significance of the CA, in part, derives from large dwellings in very large plots, which contribute towards the sense of openness and spaciousness. I observed that this defines the grain of the area. The CA Appraisal also identifies that where these large spaces have been broken, it has had a detrimental result, which is harmful to the character of the CA.

Within the [name], the appeal dwelling is identified as having a neutral impact on the CA and is not characteristic of the area in respect of design or appearance. Nevertheless, the plot as a whole is a substantial size, and this large plot and sense of openness contributes to the character and appearance of the CA and also towards its significance as a designated heritage asset.

The appeal proposal seeks to remove a planning condition which would allow for this detached annex building to operate as an independent dwelling. The proposal would, however, result in a dwelling being sited on a small, narrow plot which is in close proximity to the side boundary of the adjoining property. The independent dwelling would therefore have a cramped appearance and would be uncharacteristic of the spacious grain of development within this CA.

As no physical alterations are proposed to either the host dwelling or the residential accommodation as part of this proposal, the appellant contends that there would be no impact on the qualities of the CA. This, however, overlooks that the existing function and appearance of the annex as a subordinate building is part of the character and appearance of the area. Use of this secondary building as a primary dwelling would result in an ambiguous unit, which would be incongruous within the established spacious pattern and hierarchy of development in the area.

I acknowledge that the appellant has placed a fence separating the annex from the main dwelling and both parties agree that this is permitted development. The appellant contends that they intend for the fence to remain in future, regardless of the outcome of this appeal. Whilst that may be the case, this again overlooks the difference between land and buildings used as annex accommodation associated with a main dwelling, and land and buildings used to form independent dwellings.

The appellant also contends that the residential annex can operate independently, as it now has its own separate access, amenity space and car parking. Be that as it may, as detailed above, the use of a subordinate building as an independent dwelling is materially different to the use as annex accommodation.

In view of the above, I find that allowing the use of the annex as a self-contained dwelling would result in a development that disrupts the established sense of openness and spaciousness provided by the large plots, which is a defining characteristic of this CA. The proposal would therefore fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA, as required by Section 72(1) of the Act. As the proposal is of a modest scale and nature, the harm to the significance of the CA would be less than substantial with the degree of harm being at the lower end of that spectrum.

Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, including CAs, should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposed development and, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. The appellant contends that the continued maintenance and upkeep of the appeal site is a public benefit. The appellant has also made reference to other benefits of the scheme, including making effective use of land and contributing to the housing need. These are public benefits; however, they carry only modest weight as material considerations and would not outweigh the harm identified above. On this basis, the public benefits would not outweigh the considerable importance and weight I give to the harm to the CA.

The appellant has made reference to Moor Park Conservation Area Appraisal. I have not been provided with a copy. Furthermore, the appeal site is located in Blundellsands Park CA, therefore the relevance of an appraisal for a different CA is not apparent to the appeal scheme before me.

The appellant has also referred to a mix of plot sizes in the area and smaller properties nearby at 1, 2, 5 and [address]. I was able to view these during my site visit. I accept that these are smaller plots than the appeal site, however, they are larger properties which do not have a subordinate appearance and have wider plot frontages. They are, therefore, not comparable.

Overall, and having considered all matters raised, the condition is necessary to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Blundellsands Park CA and the character and appearance of the wider area. The proposed removal of this condition would therefore conflict with policies NH9 and NH12 of the Sefton Local Plan 2030 (adopted April 2017), where they together seek to protect the significance of heritage assets and preserve or enhance the character and appearance of CAs. It would also conflict with the Framework and the Act.

The appellant has made reference to the Council’s handling of the planning application. I cannot consider this matter under this planning appeal. It does not alter my findings, which are based on the planning merits of the appeal only.

I note that the National Annexe Planning Consultancy are in support of this proposal. However, in the main, their comments appear to relate to the continued use of the property as an annex, rather than as an independent dwelling.

The proposal 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 matters raised, the appeal is dismissed