Appeal 6003598

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

As the appeal site lies within a conservation area and relates to a listed building, I have had special regard to sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

The application form and plans state that the car port has black timber posts, with timber roof joists and polycarbonate roof sheeting. However, it was clear from my site visit that the posts were not constructed from timber but from a composite or metal material. The development that has been carried out is not the same as that which has been applied for. As a result, my decision is based on the ‘proposed’ development, as shown on the plans before me, rather than what has actually been built. Accordingly, I have removed reference to the ‘retention of’ from the proposal description.

The main issues are whether the appeal scheme would preserve a [name] listed building, known as ‘1 and [site address] ’ (Ref: 1267112) and any of the features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses and the extent to which Appeal Decisions – Appeal A: 6003598 and Appeal B: 6003595 it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Minster Conservation Area.

‘1 and [site address] ’ is a [name] listed building, which dates back to 1710. It forms part of a terrace of cottages, which are two storeys high, with attic. It has a traditional, clay tiled hipped roof. The cottages are constructed of brick, which is laid in Flemish bond. The brickwork on the appeal property has been painted white. The building features traditional timber framed, sash windows. The appeal property has a modest sized front garden, which contains soft landscaping. There is a low level picket fence along the front boundary of the appeal property.

Based on the evidence before me and my site visit, I find that the special interest of the listed building insofar as is relevant to these appeals is derived from its historic and architectural interests as an illustration of domestic architecture from the early 18th century. The building’s modest size, surviving historic fabric and its pleasing architectural design make important contributions in these regards. The building’s alignment with the street and the relatively open character of the front gardens contribute to its special interest.

The appeal site lies within the Minster Conservation Area (CA). The CA covers the historic core of Minster and includes [name] and [name], along with other historic buildings. The significance of the CA insofar as is relevant to these appeals derives from the high-quality historic architecture within it, the prominence of traditional materials and the presence of soft landscaping and green open spaces.

The appeal scheme seeks consent for a car port to the front of the property, which would adjoin the boundary wall. It would have black timber posts and timber roof joists and a flat roof, which would be finished with polycarbonate roof sheeting. The proposed car port would be relatively modest in size and height and would be subservient in size to the listed building. It would also have an open character, which would allow some views of the listed building to be retained. However, the proposal by reason of its design, siting and use of modern materials would harmfully discord with the more traditional architecture and materials found in the locality. The proposal would also have a poor relationship with the boundary wall, in which it would be attached. The proposal would be an incongruous feature in the front garden of the appeal property, which would interrupt views of the listed building and fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA.

The proposed car port would be set back slightly from the highway behind a low picket fence. I appreciate that the car port would be largely obscured in views when one travels along [address] in a westerly direction, due to the bend in the road and the mature boundary treatment between the appeal property and No. [address] (No. 1). However, it would be highly visible from the public realm to the front of the appeal property and in views as one travels along [address] in the opposite direction. Given the size, design and siting of the proposal, I do not find that the provision of new planting would mitigate the harm that I have identified above.

I appreciate that there is a detached garage to the front of No. 1; however, this is a historic building, which contributes to the industrial heritage of the locality. It also differs in design and materiality to the appeal scheme and I do not find that it Appeal Decisions – Appeal A: 6003598 and Appeal B: 6003595 provides justification for the harm that I have identified above. [name]. [address] also has a garage, this too is a historic structure and is materially different in terms of its design, siting and materiality when compared to the appeal scheme. Consequently, I give the other garages limited weight in my decision.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal scheme would fail to preserve the special interest of the listed building and the character and appearance of the CA. Given the nature and extent of the proposal, I find the harm to the special interest of the listed building and the character and appearance of the CA to be ‘less than substantial’ and at the lower end of the scale. However, this should not be equated with a less than substantial planning objection and is of considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including where appropriate, securing the asset’s optimum viable use.

The proposal would result in investment into the property, which would result in a small economic benefit, which I give limited weight in my decision as a public benefit. It appears from the evidence before me that there has been one off-road parking space at the appeal site for some time. The proposal would not increase off-road parking provision at the appeal property. Accordingly, I do not find that the proposal would help to alleviate off-road parking in the locality and find no public benefit in this regard. Given the open nature of the car port, I do not find that it would increase safety or security of the appellant’s vehicle. While the proposal seeks to provide additional soft landscaping, given the space available, such landscaping would be limited and I give it limited weight as a public benefit in my decision. There is no substantive evidence before me that the appeal scheme is necessary in order to secure the optimum viable use of the asset or that the use of the listed building would cease in the absence of the proposal.

Overall, there would be limited public benefits from the appeal scheme. Consequently, in attributing considerable importance and weight to the identified harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets, I find that there would be insufficient public benefits arising from the proposal to outweigh this harm.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve the special interest of the [name] listed building and the character and appearance of the CA. The proposal would fail to comply with the requirements of the Act and the historic environment policies of the Framework. The proposal would conflict with Policies SP36, HE02, HE03 and QD02 of the Thanet District Council Local Plan, July 2020. These policies among other things require that development is of high quality and conserves or enhances the historic environment.

The appellant argues that a number of dwellings in the area benefit from permitted development rights. However, there is no compelling evidence before me that a nearby property could utilise permitted development rights for a similar proposal in their front garden, which would be in such close proximity to a listed building and within the CA. I therefore give this argument limited weight in my decision. Appeal Decisions – Appeal A: 6003598 and Appeal B: 6003595

Appeal A: The appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, for the reasons given above, Appeal A should be dismissed.

Appeal B: For the reasons given above, Appeal B should be dismissed.