Appeal 6004743

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area and on the setting of Prestbury Conservation area.

The appeal site lies adjacent to Prestbury Conservation Area. Prestbury is a village a short distance north of Macclesfield. The conservation area covers the historic core of the village including the wide main street, the river Bollin and the water meadows, the medieval church and the Norman chapel in the wooded churchyard, the priest’s house and the rows of former silk weavers’ cottages on [address]. Its significance lies in part in its historical and architectural interest which show the evolution of the village over time.

[address] forms part of the principal historic route through the village and connects the railway station to the centre of the village. Towards the edge of the conservation area, it contains some detached houses, and this is continued beyond the boundary, where it is lined by large, detached houses set in spacious plots on elevated land to either side of the road that reflect the growth of the village in the 20th century into a prosperous settlement.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) defines the setting of a heritage asset as the surroundings in which it is experienced and indicates that proposals that make a positive contribution to, or better reveal the significance of, the asset should be treated favourably.

The houses and the spacious character of the area along with the stone boundary walls and plentiful trees and hedges show how the village has continued to grow and evolve providing contrast with the tighter grain of buildings in the historic core. The more open setting distinguishes the conservation area and its hinterland and so contributes to its significance.

The appeal site forms part of the front garden of Newlands, a large, detached house, on the corner of [address] and [site address] whose front elevation faces [address]. Newlands, together with the houses on [address] on the other side of [site address] , forms a row of properties of a similar type and age leading up from the conservation area towards the station.

Due to the topography of the site the front garden is tiered with the area closest to the road being lower than that nearest to the house. Nonetheless the whole garden occupies an elevated position in relation to the adjacent road, with the boundary to the footway being marked by a stone wall with a tall hedge above it. At this point, the footway itself is separated from the road by a grass verge and for part of its length a hedge as well.

The proposed dwelling would be a large, detached house with accommodation in the roof space. It would be set down from the existing house on a similar level to the existing lower tier of the garden. It would be accessed by enlarging the existing pedestrian access on the corner of [site address] , but its position means it would be seen as a property on [address]. The scale and mass of the proposed dwelling would be similar to other houses in the area.

The current properties on this side of [address], are set in substantial plots and are set back a similar, significant distance from the road and the associated footway. The vegetation in both the front gardens and along the roadside, give the area a spacious and verdant character.

Even if it is considered the position of the house reflects the building line on [address], it would be set well forward of the established building line on [address] to which it primarily relates. The distance the side elevation would maintain to [address] would be significantly less than the existing dwellings and this, together with its siting to the front of the existing dwelling, would make it an incongruous addition to the street scene, that would not respect the current spatial rhythm of the road.

It would also sit in what would be an uncharacteristically small plot. This, together with the limited distance to the front elevation of the host property would result in what would be a cramped and enclosed form of development that would be detrimental to the spacious, open character of the area and the contribution this makes to the setting of the conservation area and thereby its significance.

Notwithstanding the design features proposed on the frontage facing the road, the principal elevation of the dwelling would still clearly be read as that facing [site address] . This orientation of the dwelling would be out of keeping with the other houses on this side of [address], which all face towards that road. This would be particularly noticeable when travelling in a southerly direction along the road.

Whilst the houses in the area are individual in their design, there is a common palette of materials and some recurring design features that give a degree of consistency to the area around the appeal site. Whilst the proposed materials and the gable features included in the design would be in keeping with this, the solid to void ratio and particularly the largely glazed gable feature on the front elevation, would not. The design would therefore not be sympathetic to the architectural character of the area.

My attention has been drawn to the fact that there are a number of modern dwellings in the area surrounding the appeal site. However, whilst some of these are quite prominent, they are located much further away from the conservation area, and so do not form part of its setting. Others, including one which has a largely glazed gable feature, are located on different roads that do not contribute in the same way to the significance of the conservation area as [address] does. From the evidence before me, and what I observed, properties with large areas of glazing in gable features are rare. The example highlighted to me confirms that inappropriate levels of glazing are detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and so do not set a precedent that should be followed.

The current level of vegetation on the roadside boundary, and the proposed level of the site would limit the views of the proposed dwelling from the public realm. In addition, the curvature of [address] means there are only short range views of the site in conjunction with views into and out of the conservation area.

However, the dwelling would still be able to be seen above the vegetation in these views. Furthermore, the vegetation is not protected in planning terms, and so, whilst it is likely that future occupiers would want some form of secure boundary to the road frontage, the retention of the vegetation cannot be guaranteed to provide the current level of screening to the site and the consequent mitigation of the impact of the proposal.

However, even if the boundary wall and vegetation above it are retained, whilst this might reduce the impact the proposal would have on the appearance of the area, character is a more intrinsic quality that does not depend on visibility and the impact of the proposal on this would be much more severe.

Overall, I consider the proposal would have an unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the area. It would therefore conflict with Policies SD1, SD2, SE1 and SE7 of the [site address] Local Plan Strategy (adopted July

(CELPS) and Policy GEN1 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (adopted December 2022) (SADPD) which, amongst other things, seek to ensure developments contribute positively to their surroundings, reflect local character and contribute to local distinctiveness.

As a consequence of the harm it would cause to the character and appearance of the area it would also adversely affect the contribution this part of the setting has to the significance of Prestbury Conservation Area. Accordingly, it would therefore be contrary to Policies SD1, SD2, SE1 and SE7 of the CELPS and Policy HER3 of the SADPD which, amongst other things, require developments to protect and enhance the historic environment, respect the significance of heritage assets and take into account the character of the area.

Having regard to paragraph 215 of the Framework the harm caused to the significance of the conservation area would be less than substantial, at the lower end of the scale and so should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

Both the construction phase and spend by future occupiers would benefit the local economy and help support the viability of local services, and the proposal would contribute to the housing land supply. However, as the proposal is only for a single dwelling, the contribution it would make to the housing land supply is minimal and the economic benefits would be limited, so, even though it is not disputed that the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply, I give both these economic and social benefits limited weight. In the light of this, I consider the benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the harm it would cause to the significance of the heritage asset.

The Council have indicated that they currently only have a 3.8 year supply of housing land. In such circumstances paragraph 11d) of the Framework is engaged. This paragraph indicates that in such circumstances permission should be granted unless either of the 2 situations described in sub-paragraphs d) i or ii apply. Paragraph 11 d) i indicates that this presumption in favour of permission does not apply where the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed. Footnote 7 indicates that this includes designated heritage assets.

I have concluded above that the proposal would unacceptably harm the significance of Prestbury Conservation Area and that the public benefits do not outweigh this harm. Therefore, the application of the policies in the Framework relating to designated heritage assets provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed.

Even if the proposal stood to be considered against paragraph 11d) ii, I consider the harm that would arise to the character and appearance of the area, would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited economic and social benefits arising from 1 dwelling during construction and occupation, and the contribution of a single unit to housing supply.

Consequently, the proposal would not benefit from the presumption in favour of development as defined in the Framework and there are no material considerations that indicate permission should be granted for development that is not in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be dismissed.