Appeal 6004072

The appeal is dismissed.

I have received draft copies of legal agreements from the appellant. The latest [name] remains unsigned and undated.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the setting of nearby listed building, known as [site address] . • Relevant policies for the location of housing in line with the Council’s spatial strategy and its accessibility to services and/or facilities • Whether the proposal makes adequate provision for any additional need for sport, recreation and community facilities arising from the development.

I have considered the duties contained in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) in determining this appeal. The Act contains duties whereby special regard should be given to the desirability of preserving listed buildings, their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

[name] is a [name] listed building. It’s historical significance comes from its architectural quality of a circa 1700 dwelling, with limited and subservient modern additions. Its architecture is that of a two storey dwelling, with the first floor in the roof space; as well as its significant use of natural/historic materials that appear to be well preserved. [name] sits within a generous garden space. The space has been clearly separated from the application site and from the evidence before me there does not appear to be any historical significance between keeping these spaces together.

The extensions and alterations to create the proposed dwelling, primarily by raising of the ridge height by approximately 1 metre and the addition of dormers into the roof space would create competition between [name] and the proposed dwelling. In addition, the use of contemporary materials would not be in keeping with the material palette of [name]. The increase in domestic paraphernalia from the proposal would likely have only a very limited impact on the historical significance on the heritage asset.

The distance between [name] and the proposed dwelling and use of high-quality contemporary materials in clear juxtaposition with [name] would minimise the harm to the Grade II Listed Building. Therefore, even with the limited harm the proposal undermines the significance of the listed building. It follows that the proposal does not preserve the setting of a listed building. On this basis the proposal does conflict with the expectations of the Act.

Neither party has raised any concerns in relation to the proposed impact on the heritage asset known as [address], [name] listed building, and I have no evidence to the contrary of this. Therefore, the proposal causes no harm to this

In terms of the Framework, the proposal causes less than substantial harm to the significance of the Listed Building of [name]. Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that in these circumstances this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The public benefit of this proposal is the creation of a single dwelling, which as detailed above is materially different from an annexe. In this case this public benefit does outweigh the harm.

I therefore conclude on this issue that while the proposal does cause harm to the heritage asset of [name]; this harm is outweighed by the public benefit and on this basis it complies with the Framework. The proposal also complies with the overall requirements of Policies DM15 and DM16 of the Local Plan 2017- 2033 Section 2 [name] 2022 (Local Plan Section 2) that seek any harm to heritage be outweighed by public benefit.

The site is located outside of the settlement boundary. It is opposite a restaurant and there is a narrow unlit pavement that goes southwards to a [address]. I have also noted that there are industrial premises within close proximity to the site.

The existing building on site is currently being used as a very large 1 bedroom annexe. The annexe also has one W.C, a bathroom, a large office/walk in wardrobe, living/dining room, kitchen/dining room and hallway. The proposal is seeking a three bedroom dwelling.

Policies SP1 and SP3 of the Colchester Borough Local Plan 2013-2033 Section 1 [name] 2021 (Local Plan Section 1) in total seek presumption in favour of sustainable development, working with developers and existing settlement will be the primary focus of development and support of the diversification of the rural economy.

Policies SG1, SG2 and OV2 of Local Plan Section 2 in total seek that growth will be located in the most sustainable locations that will reduce the need to travel as well as sustainable travel options for different purposes and development in the countryside must respect the character and appearance of the area, as well as preserving or enhancing the historic environment.

The appellant argues that the proposal is not an isolated dwelling and on that basis the exceptions covered under a-e of paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (Framework) would not apply. Notwithstanding this, the current annex is not redundant or disused as it was clearly being lived in at the time of my visit.

[name] have noted the current use as an annex that has a large degree of independence from the main dwelling, it is not an independent place of living. On this basis the change from a one bedroom annex to a three bedroom would have a fundamental difference to the number and type of trips that would be expected from this site. The appellant seems to rely on the idea that it would be the same occupants living in the proposed dwelling, as currently in the annex. While the proposal is being put forward as a self-build, the original occupants cannot be expected to live in the proposed dwelling for the lifetime of the development. It would also be unreasonable to condition this development as a personal consent in perpetuity. Therefore, I only give limited positive weight in favour of the proposal based on the existing fallback position of maintaining the annex.

There is reference to a stonemason on the site, and I saw some evidence of this on site. However, I have not been presented with evidence of when this gained planning permission, its exact size or how long it ran for. Therefore, this has only limited weight in favour of the appeal.

I note that the Local Highways Authority has not objected to the proposal. However, the requirement under paragraph 117 of the Framework seeks to ensure priority is given to pedestrian and cycle movements. Given the site’s location, the nature of the road and the width of the pavement; combined with the distance to a wide range of services and facilities it is unlikely that future occupants would choose to travel by sustainable means.

I therefore conclude on this matter that the proposal is not in accordance with the Council’s spatial strategy for new development, nor is the site accessible to a good range of services and facilities by foot or cycle. On this basis it does not comply with Policies SP1 and SP3 of the Local Plan Section 1, which in total seek sustainable development focused on or adjacent to settlements. In addition, the proposal does not comply with Policies SG1, SG2 and OV2 of the Local Plan Section 2 that in total seeks to place development in the most accessible locations and must either preserve or enhance the historic environment.

From the evidence before me, both parties have agreed that financial contributions are reasonable and required. However, the appellant comments that it has struggled to have meaningful discussions with the Council and has submitted a draft UU on this basis as part of the appeal.

The appellant requests that an ‘Arsenal’ condition is used to ensure the UU is completed. However, firstly as detailed under Paragraph: 005 [name]: 21a- 005-20190723 of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) covers the use of negative worded conditions to require contributions for instance towards the completing of an obligation to secure supporting infrastructure. However, as detailed under Paragraph: 010 [name]: 21a-[phone] of the PPG this is in exceptional circumstances. Given the nature of the proposal and the evidence before me there is no exceptional circumstances. Therefore, a condition would not be appropriate.

I therefore conclude that the proposal does not make adequate provision for any additional need for sport, recreation and community facilities arising from the development via an off site contribution. On this basis the proposal conflicts with Policies SP6 of the Local Plan Section 1 and Policies SG7 and PP1 of the Local Plan Section 2 that in total seek suitable contributions towards community/sport/recreation improvements.

The appellant has provided a financial contribution to the Recreational disturbance Avoidance and [name], which seeks to mitigate the additional recreational pressure on the [name] arising through the proposed development. If the appeal was to be allowed, it would be necessary to consider this matter within an appropriate assessment.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it.