Appeal 6003785

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the significance of the Simmondley Conservation Area (CA) and its effect on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the area.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that when considering the impact of new development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to its conservation. I have also had special regard to section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) as amended.

The Simmondley CA has historic significance as an Anglo-Saxon settlement which can be seen in its informal pattern of development. Its architectural significance derives from the largely unaltered traditional buildings and boundaries built in local gritstone which contribute very positively to its character and appearance. Whilst it forms part of a larger built area, it adjoins open countryside and has the character of a small rural village.

The appeal dwelling is sited within the centre of the CA on a narrow no-through road. It is a semi-detached cottage-style dwelling built of gritstone on an irregular-shaped sloping plot with a wide frontage and two storeys to the front with three storeys at the rear. There have been a number of alterations and additions to the property, including two flat roof dormers at second floor level in the rear elevation, a timber framed and glazed first floor balcony on the same elevation (approved at appeal), a timber shepherd’s hut style office building in the side garden, and a timber greenhouse and painted timber shed in the rear garden. There are a number of mature trees within the garden and on surrounding land and it has a somewhat wooded, rural character.

The proposed first floor extension would enlarge the existing kitchen to provide a new dining area. It would project from the rear elevation and would be supported by steel columns set into an existing rear patio. A glazed balcony and steps would provide access down to the rear garden. It would follow the angled line of the side boundary with an irregular form and a flat roof, finished in composite timber cladding. The flat roof form and non-traditional materials proposed would result in an extension with a contemporary style. The Council’s objections concern its flat roof form, its depth/elevated height and its materials.

The proposal would be partially seen at some distance from a lower level from the small green at the junction of [address] and [address], a busy through route. It would also be seen from the two nearest neighbouring dwellings, Appletrees and The Weavings.

I have noted that the Council’s Conservation Officer has said that flat roofs are not traditionally acceptable within the CA, but agree with the appellant that the 2005 [name] reference to flat roofs applies to main roofline extensions and is not relevant in this case. The more recent [name] (2018) recognises that a more contemporary approach will retain the historic integrity of the building, notwithstanding the need to consider scale and character. The appellant’s approach to minimising the impact of the extension with a flat roof is therefore appropriate in this context and as it would not compete with or distract from the original pitched roof form of the dwelling, I find that a flat roof would be acceptable.

However, the plans show that the extension would project some 6.3m in depth along the boundary with Appletrees and that it would project some 5.2m in depth from rear wall of the dwelling before turning at an angle. It would therefore amount to a sizeable extension. The existing dwelling has a depth at its north eastern end elevation of only around 5.75m and the proposed depth would not be sufficiently subordinate to that. The depth of the extension would be apparent from the adjoining first floor bay window of Appletrees and from the first floor windows of The Weavings, as well as from the rear garden of the appeal site itself. As such, it would result in significant harm to the character of the dwelling which does not depend on visibility from public viewpoints.

My objections to this proposal also concern the use of composite timber cladding which is proposed in an oak effect. This is not a natural material and does not have the unique richness, detail, depth of colour or ageing process of natural materials. As such, it would not sufficiently reflect the qualities of either the gritstone that predominates in the CA or the wooded character of the appeal site. This would result in significant harm to the appearance of the dwelling and the CA and more particularly to their character, being less dependent on visibility from public viewpoints.

I saw at my visit some of the examples of modern extensions in the CA referred to by the appellant and the use of non-traditional materials in the immediate vicinity of the appeal dwelling, some of which can be seen from public viewpoints within the CA. However, not all of those make a positive contribution to its character and appearance and do not provide justification for the additional harm that would be caused by the proposed depth and cladding here.

Whilst the harm in this case would be less than substantial and at the lower end of the spectrum, it still carries considerable weight, and the Framework also requires that any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. Where the harm is less than substantial, it should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

[name] have noted the appellant’s claims that the proposed timber composite cladding offers superior weather resistance and longevity compared to traditional timber, reducing maintenance and long term costs and is manufactured from sustainable resources, I have insufficient evidence regarding those claims which, even if valid, given the minor nature of this proposal, would carry only limited weight.

The proposal would provide increased living accommodation for the dwelling and improved accessibility to the outside, but I have not been told of any essential personal need for that and this carries very limited weight.

Those matters do not, therefore, amount to public benefits sufficient to outweigh the harm that would be caused here as required by the Framework.

I conclude then that by reason of the proposed depth and materials, the proposal would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling and would fail to preserve or enhance the significance of the CA. It would be contrary, therefore, to development plan policies EQ6 and EQ7 in the High Peak Local Plan (2016) which together seek to ensure that new development contributes positively to an area’s character and takes account of traditional materials to minimise harm to heritage assets. It would also fail to meet the requirements of the Framework.

The Council’s decision also refers to the lack of an arboricultural assessment in regard to two trees within the site that are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. I have not been provided with any information regarding those trees by the Council, although at my visit I noted that the mature trees on the site were to the side and far end of the rear garden, some distance from the siting of the proposed extension. I have also noted the email trail provided by the appellant in which the planning officer advised that an assessment was not necessary. As my findings regarding the harm caused to the dwelling and the CA by the proposed depth and materials are significant and determinative, I have not concluded on the matter of the trees.

I have noted that the Council has not raised any objection in terms of the effect on living conditions of any neighbouring occupiers. As the extension would be outside a line of 45o from the centre point of the nearest window at Appletrees and would be some distance from other neighbouring properties, I would agree with its assessment in that regard.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would be contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that. The appeal should be dismissed.