Appeal 6003859

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The appellant indicates discrepancies with the Council’s measurements of the appeal scheme. As the submitted plans clearly set out the dimensions, I have determined the appeal based on them.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area, and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area (CA).

The appeal site comprises a two storey detached cottage dating from the late 19 th century, occupying a prominent and tight position along the edge of [site address] . There is also a public footpath running adjacent its rear boundary. The appeal property, together with surrounding dwellings, is set within long, narrow plots of even length. These run at right angles to [site address] and stretch back to the hedgerows that define the CA boundary. This historic plot pattern is characteristic of burgage tenements found within medieval towns, suggesting that the village once functioned as a market centre. The retention of this layout therefore makes a positive contribution to the significance of the CA.

Nonetheless, a number of modern interventions are evident at the rear of the appeal site. These include a two storey extension, resulting in an ‘M’ shaped roof, a flat roof single storey extension and rear dormers, all of which are visible from [site address] . Collectively, these additions have significantly altered the side profile of the cottage and substantially increased its depth. The rear garden also contains a detached garage, as well as other garden and storage buildings. Incremental development is apparent on nearby plots, where similar structures and backland development have taken place within the long rear gardens. Taken together, these changes have contributed to an erosion of the legibility of the historic burgage plot pattern. Despite this, the buildings in the area generally display a hierarchy, with outbuildings subordinate to their host. This is a positive and consistent aspect of the CA’s traditional significance.

Planning permission has been granted for a further outbuilding under Ref. 22/36389/HOU. As such, the siting of the proposal deeper within the rear of the plot, would not result in a significantly different situation, from that which has already been approved. Its positioning would therefore be suitable, particularly given that the Council has established that an outbuilding in this location would be acceptable. The proposal’s siting would also be consistent with the pattern of rear development that has already extended well into the depth of the gardens.

That said, it would be of a much larger scale than that approved. The total footprint of the existing and proposed buildings would be limited when assessed against the overall plot size. However, this comparison relates to surface area only. Although it would be set back from the host property and would have a lower ridgeline than the host dwelling and Tanglewood, it would not be seen as a clearly subservient structure due to its significant height. The proposal would therefore fail to respect the established and characteristic hierarchy within the CA, where outbuildings are subordinate to host dwellings, and would instead appear as a competing and disproportionate addition. It would be obscured by the existing garage from [site address] . However, views of it would still be possible through the side gaps. Even if the proposal were not obvious in the public realm, its scale and design would remain inappropriate to both the character and appearance of the CA.

The appellant states the proposal would be of a comparable scale to the existing garage, but there is no information before me as to whether this relates to a greater or lesser height. In any case, the existing garage is already a tall building, and the introduction of an additional structure of a significant height and larger dimensions, would only further exaggerate the dominance of the outbuildings, in relation to the host dwelling. A substantial cowshed was historically located at the rear and reflects the site’s previous function for a cowhouse and shop. Nonetheless, this structure did not appear to have any heritage significance and has since been removed. It also did not set any positive design precedent, nor does it justify the appeal scheme.

The proposal includes the use of black timber cladding to the external walls and grey clay roof tiles. This combination would result in a stark and uniformly dark appearance, which would jar against the predominantly earthy toned material palette of the surrounding buildings and the more conventional and traditional brick of the CA. Whilst timber is a material commonly used in rural and agricultural contexts, a finishing in black would not acceptably integrate it within the residential setting of the appeal site. Within the CA, black architectural features are present but are typically broken up with other materials and colours. They do not feature as a primary finish.

The appellant is willing to accept a condition to secure an alternative external colour and material. A different exterior finish, such as brick, could be more reflective of the largely red bricked built forms that characterise the area and the older buildings in the CA, as well as some extensions thereto. However, in the absence of any details or plans, it is not possible to assess whether such an approach would be acceptable. In any case, as the external treatment is integral to the proposal’s design, I would be reluctant to seek this as a condition, particularly given that such changes could significantly alter the scheme. Furthermore, my concerns do not relate solely to the choice of materials, but also to the scale, which would be unaffected by such a change.

The proposal would appear as a conspicuous and discordant structure from the footpath, which affords public access and views of the site from the rear. The appellant suggests that the footpath runs through the centre of the field to the rear of the appeal site. However, on my site visit, it was clear from the signage available and the worn tracks, that it begins at the stile and immediately follows the southern edge of the field, along the rear boundaries of the appeal site and adjacent dwellings. Given its siting, the proposed building would be positioned in the foreground of views, where its scale and solid black external treatment would draw immediate attention. This perspective would cause the building to be seen as the principal structure of the appeal site. A similar effect is already apparent with the existing garage, which is read as a dominant form in rearward views of the appeal site.

For these reasons, the appeal scheme would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area, and would neither preserve, nor enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Given its localised effect, the harm would be at the lower end of less than substantial for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Even so, I am mindful that the conservation of the CA is a matter of considerable importance and weight. In such circumstances, the harm should be weighed against the proposal’s public benefits.

The appellant states the appeal scheme is required to provide a safe indoor space in which to undertake their personal hobbies, as well as to accommodate the storage of associated equipment and tools. Ultimately, the appellant’s stated benefits are private and there is insufficient evidence to suggest why they could not be achieved by other potentially less harmful means. In this instance therefore, the public benefits carry only very limited weight that would be insufficient to outweigh the harm to the CA.

Therefore, the proposal would conflict with Policies N1 Design and N9 [name] of The Plan for Stafford Borough 2014 and the Framework. Together, and amongst other things, these ensure developments have regard to the local context and sustain and enhance the significance of heritage assets and their setting.

Delays and the lack of discussion from the Council should be taken up with them directly and are not for me to resolve here.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.