Appeal 6003153

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s description of development removes unnecessary descriptive information from that presented on the application form. The description provided on the decision notice is clear and adequate, as set out in the banner heading above.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Burford Conservation Area (CA).

The Council reference Burford as an exceptionally well preserved, medieval town with an especially distinctive [address]. [name] covers a wide area which includes the historic core, the network of streets surrounding it, areas of green space, open land and both sporadic and planned housing development. [name] character appraisal or management plan are available. The planned estate of [address] dates from circa 1930 and provides a primary source of housing stock to serve the town within proximity to its [address]. The significance of the Conservation Area as a whole is derived from the mix of building styles which have developed over a prolonged period and the relationships between buildings and open areas to the historic core.

[address] is positioned on the outskirts of the urban area and at the edge of the CA. From my observation, the estate features two character areas. On the main entrance road and half of the internal loop road there is a mix of bungalows and two storey dwellings in semi-detached pairs and terraces. Very few of the dwellings have associated garages and many properties now use part or all of the front garden as off-road parking. Nevertheless, the frontages of the properties are generally open in character and relatively spacious in appearance. Grass verges and strategic tree planting contribute to a complementary public realm and street scene.

The return of the [address] loop, including the area fronting the A40, is set out in a different layout with dwellings fronting onto landscaped footpaths and the rear of dwellings opening onto [address]. In this smaller character area, there are numerous outbuildings and garages of varying sizes and materials within close proximity to the highway.

The appeal site is located within the first character area, on an internal corner of [address], adjacent to its junction with [address]. A mature tree and wide grass verge to the front of adjacent properties provide a pleasant setting. There is a large front garden enclosed by timber fencing and hedging which is typical of the area. An existing driveway provides off road parking for vehicles in tandem. The site contributes positively to the street scene at this location.

The siting, scale and form of the proposed garage would obscure a significant proportion of the principal elevation of the dwelling and detract from the openness of the front garden. It would introduce a prominent and discordant building form, physically and visually at odds with this part of [address]. As such, it would be out of keeping with the established pattern and would erode the character and appearance of the street scene within this planned residential estate which comprises a component part of the CA. In line with National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) terminology, the harm would be less than substantial, nevertheless it must be given considerable importance and weight.

Notwithstanding that the proposed plans do not show matching materials, this could be achieved by planning condition however this would not address the harm identified.

Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires special attention to be paid to preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. Alongside this, paragraph 212 of the NPPF requires great weight to be given to the conservation of designated

In such cases, the NPPF requires the harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Public benefits arising from this development would be minimal, relating to the short-term economic activity of the construction. The proposed use of the building to store and repair an historic vehicle relates to the private activity of the appellant. No clear and convincing justification has been provided in favour of the proposed development that would outweigh the harm identified.

Given the above and in the absence of any defined significant public benefit, on balance, the proposal would fail to preserve the character or appearance of [name]. This would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act, paragraph 210 of the NPPF and conflict with Policies OS2, OS4, H6 and EH10 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031. These policies seek to secure proportionate and appropriate development complementary to the scale and pattern of development and/or the character of the area in which it is to be located, specifically conserving or enhancing designated Conservation Areas. As a result, the proposal would not be in accordance with the development plan.

Further to this, the proposed development would be contrary to the [name] (2016) which seeks outstanding design in managing the built environment.

The appellant has suggested a condition to restrict the use of the garage to that proposed however this would not address the harm identified. The absence of public objections also does not address the matters raised.

Each appeal must be treated on its individual merits. Nevertheless, allowing this appeal may make it more difficult to resist further planning applications for garages and similar buildings within the street scene. Any cumulative effect would exacerbate the harm to the Conservation Area.

The pre-application advice received from the Council is stated to be not binding and does not materially affect the consideration of the planning merits of the appeal scheme.

The site is within the Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL). This is a protected landscape, and I have a duty to seek to further the statutory purposes of the CNL which is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area. In this case, given the nature and location of the development, it would leave the natural beauty of the CNL unharmed, and the duty is thereby discharged.

For the reasons set out above, the proposed development would not be in accordance with the development plan when read as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. As such, the appeal is dismissed.