Appeal 6004212

The appeal is dismissed.

An amended description of development was agreed during the course of the application by the appellant; however, the decision notice does not correspond with this. I have utilised the agreed description in the banner heading, which also corresponds with the appellants appeal submissions.

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

The [site address] Conservation Area Character Appraisal 2011 (the [name]) states the CA comprises the historic medieval core of the village, with records of the village dating back to the [name] of 1086. The CA contains several character areas representing the historic development of the village and includes a number of listed buildings. Its significance as a whole derives from its legibility of the historic development of the village and is of historical, archaeological and architectural value. The use of single storey elements and gaps between buildings at first floor level reduces the massing of buildings in the higher density areas, and contributes positively to the CA. Dormer windows are also prevalent throughout the CA.

The appeal site comprises a red brick two-storey semi-detached dwelling, with a single storey side element that includes a prominent chimney. It is of a subservient scale to the attached dwelling at [address] and the adjacent property [address]. The property is representative of the historical development of the village and contributes positively to the CA. A footpath runs along [address] and the dwelling is visible from several viewpoints from the public domain within the CA and from a range of neighbouring properties.

The proposed first floor extension would include a gabled dormer window which are found elsewhere in the CA. However, the extensions scale and massing would result in a reduction of the legibility of the original building and its relationship to neighbouring properties. It would harmfully erode the visual and physical gap at first floor level between No 5 and No 6. The close proximity of the resultant building to its neighbour would result in a terracing effect, contrary to the ambitions of The Extending Your Home: Supplementary Planning Document 2006 (the SPD), which sets out that extensions should be sympathetic to the original dwelling and recognises that spaces between buildings make an important contribution to the character of the area.

I appreciate that due to the existing single storey elements position, to have a first-floor extension stepped back could look contrived, however that does not warrant the allowance of poor design in other respects. By having flush walls with the existing brickwork, the extension would be likely distinguishable but in a negative respect, due to interconnecting bricks of minimal variations in brick-and-mortar colouring and weathering even if matching bricks are proposed.

The Character Appraisal says [address], which [address] is accessed from, is densely developed. This does not however provide justification for increasing the massing of a property as proposed.

The single storey rear extension, whilst of a similar size to nearby extensions, would introduce a shallow pitched roof which would be at odds to the steep pitches found elsewhere on the property. Furthermore, the wide rear facing dormer window would not respond to the window hierarchy of the host property and would introduce a bulky roof addition into an area where such features are not prevalent.

I acknowledge that the rear of the property is less visible from the public realm than the front of it, but I noted on my visit that it is prominent in view from several nearby residential properties. Furthermore, the effect on the significance of a heritage asset does not depend on there being public rights of way or an ability to otherwise access or experience it. My attention has not been drawn to any policies or legislation which sets out that if something is not visible then harmful development can be accepted. Indeed, my statutory duty in respect of conservation areas applies to the whole of the area, whether it is visible or not.

Regarding the National Planning Policy Framework’s (the Framework) wording, the proposal would have less than substantial harm and would be at the lower end of that category of harm. In accordance with Paragraph 215 of the Framework, when less than substantial harm is found to the significance of a designated heritage asset it must be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme. The proposals would result in some economic and social benefits, however considering the scale of the proposal these can only be attributed limited weight. Paragraph 212 of the Framework states that great weight should be attributed to the conservation of heritage assets. As such the benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the harm and therefore the proposal conflicts with the Framework.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal site. The positive contribution that the appeal property makes to the character and appearance of the CA would be harmfully reduced by the proposal. Accordingly, the CA’s character or appearance would be neither preserved or enhanced in conflict with Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. This brings the proposal into conflict with Policy 11 of the [name] 2014 (the LP) and Policy EV5 of the Erewash Borough Saved Policies Document 2008 (the SLP), which seek to protect the historic environment. The proposal would also be contrary to Policy 10 of the LP and Policy H12 of the SLP, which seek design is of a high quality and that it takes into consideration local context and characteristics.

The appellant has referred me to the historical development of the neighbouring property [address] and another property in the village. The side extensions highlighted are though subservient to the original form of the buildings, in terms of roofline and being set back from the front elevation. I appreciate from the information provided by the appellant that No.6 once had a single storey element that has since been replaced, but I do not have the full details of this development, including what policies were in place at the time. In any event I have determined the appeal on its own merits.

In support of the development the appellant has highlighted that no objections have been received locally, however this is a neutral factor in the determination of the appeal.

I also note the need for the extension, but I have no evidence to demonstrate a smaller extension with less harm would not also meet the needs of the appellant.

Concerns have been raised with the behaviour of the Council during the application process; however, this is a dispute for the appellant and the Council to resolve outside of the appeal process.

In conclusion, the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh that conflict. For these reasons, the appeal should be dismissed.