Appeal 6004454

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against South Derbyshire District Council and this is the subject of a separate Decision.

As the proposal is in the [site address] Conservation Area (KNCA) and in proximity to listed buildings 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).

Although the Council raise two refusal reasons, the matters before me to consider wholly overlap and I have identified the main issue to be as follows.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the [site address] Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings, and upon the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed development would be an ancillary building for garaging/workshop with an upper floor games room within the curtilage of [site address] (No.63a) a house of relatively recent construction located behind the frontage buildings of [address]. The building would be set well away from, and to the north of, the main house (No.63a) in a part of the [site address] Conservation Area (KNCA) that would be otherwise devoid of substantial structures and which, from my observation, has a generally open and undeveloped character notwithstanding elements such as fencing and stone walling.

The KNCA is characterised by strong developmental contrasts. The area containing the appeal site is set behind significant frontage buildings, including designated and non-designated heritage assets1 which line the north side of [address]. [name] and Stables sit adjacent to the access to the appeal site and are listed for their group value, enclosing a courtyard space with [address]. These buildings present as directly associated with [address] and my observations are that their setting includes the access and frontage areas of No.63a2.

The appellant asserts these significant heritage assets are ‘viewed at this point predominantly from [address]’ emphasising the importance of the contribution made by their architectural presence in the street and therefore to the character and appearance of the KNCA. It is also apparent that these important structures are also experienced from the north, however the proposed building would not, merely by being apparent from some points within their curtilage, be within the setting of [name], [name] or [address]. I do not consider the proposed building would materially harm the significance of these listed buildings.

Turning to the effect of the proposed development upon the conservation area, it is apparent that the character and appearance of the KNCA in the vicinity of the proposed development is not determined only by its buildings but by the inclusion of areas where the absence of built form is a predominant characteristic relating to historic uses of the land and its relationship with the frontage buildings. Pathways connect [address] to [address], including one alongside the eastern edge of the open part of the curtilage to No.63a where the proposed building would be located. [address] lies to the north, roughly parallel with [address], and aligns with a former ‘back lane’ which, with intermediate pathways to [address], provided access to individually cultivated parcels of land identified as ‘homesteads’ or ‘crofts’.

In this case the appeal site (63a) likely formed part of a separate holding or ‘croft’ independently of frontage uses. Although these spaces have since evolved, largely as gardens and domestic amenity spaces, their significance as essentially open and undeveloped spaces remains. At the time of my visit the proposed location for the building was plainly visible from one of these paths as an open area of undeveloped land, significant built form being entirely absent in that view.

The proposal would insert a substantial building with a footprint and bulk equivalent to that of a small dwelling, including habitable incidental accommodation at an upper floor level with several rooflights, some large. Given the suggested uses3 the development would likely introduce new light sources at night, extending a general awareness of domestic activity into an otherwise quiet area. Overall, the effect of the proposal would be to extend built form well beyond the grouping of buildings in the street frontage and in this particular case, by its separation from the host dwelling (63a), add a further line of built development beyond that dwelling which itself lies further away from the street frontage grouping of buildings than any other 1 Such as Nos.[address] 2 From where these buildings may be understood, by their windowless elevations and simple bulk, as buildings of agricultural rather than residential origins 3 The upper floor being identified as a games room. dwelling in this part of the village4. [address], a moderately-sized house associated with [address] and its cluster of other twentieth-century dwellings which lie to the east, obstructs northerly views out of the appeal site, that does not diminish the significance of the absence of substantial built form in this part of the KNCA.

I am not persuaded that the proposal ‘chimes with the pattern of small outbuildings to the rear of many properties within this zone of the Conservation Area’ in the way that the appellant suggests. I have considered the appellant mapping5 which shows both small outbuildings and demolished structures. However, what is proposed is much more substantial and has a permanent character. It would appear as an incongruous insertion into the rear curtilage of No.63a, the openness and undeveloped6 character of which contributes to the distinctive character of the KNCA.

Consequently, although I have determined that the proposed building would not be within the setting of the nearby listed buildings such that there would be no harm to their significance, I consider the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the KNCA causing less than substantial harm to its significance, a factor which attracts significant importance and weight.

Having regard to paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework the suggested public benefits of the proposal are limited to suggestions of landscape improvement or other factors which largely accrue to the landowner. I attach very limited weight to the suggested sustainability benefits as these might easily be achieved by other means, consequently I have nothing before me to indicate that the harm to the KNCA is outweighed by any public benefit.

The proposed development is in conflict with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework7. I also conclude that, for the same reasons, the proposal would conflict with policy BNE10 of the South Derbyshire Local Plan Part 2 (SDLP2), which seeks to protect heritage assets from harm and with the Melbourne Neighbourhood Development Plan which at Policy HC1 which seeks to protect the character and setting of Melbourne and [site address] by ensuring there are no adverse impacts upon heritage assets.

The appellant points to the Council’s decision to permit the change the use of the appeal site to residential amenity land8 as a location ‘between several domestic buildings’. This is not incorrect although the comment in that officer report is of a very general nature. Further, the appellant fails to acknowledge that permitted development rights were removed in order that the land would retain its open appearance unless express permission were to be granted. 4 Including the houses to the east of 63a which are not within the KNCA 5 Appendix 4 of Grounds of Appeal 6 Lacking built form 7 Paragraphs 212-215 8 [name]/2024/0922

Consequently, taking all matters raised into account my reasoning directs that the appeal cannot succeed.