Appeal 6006480

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the character and appearance and significance of the Conservation Area.

The appeal site lies within the Lexden Conservation Area (Colchester Conservation Area No 3) (CA). As such I have had regard to section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which requires that special attention be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The appeal site lies toward the western end of the CA on the southern side of [address]. Whilst there is no [name] before me, the significance of this part of the CA derives from the historic groupings of development to the east and west, separated by a notably verdant section of the road corridor including the open, tree-lined character of Spring Lane Park to the north and, to the south, a walled frontage softened by dense tree cover. The architectural quality of the dwellings within these groupings also contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area. The appeal site, which contains the first dwelling within the western grouping when approached from the east, occupies a prominent position within the street scene and the dwelling’s slightly elevated siting further increases its visibility.

A Grade II listed building lies to the northwest on the opposite side of [address]. Its significance derives principally from its architectural and historic interest as a modest roadside cottage. The appeal site is experienced separately from the listed building due to the intervening road and spacing between them.

The appeal property comprises a semi-detached dwelling of early twentieth century appearance within a well-established and spacious landscaped plot. It is characterised by steeply pitched tiled roofs, a prominent brick chimney stack and elevations finished in light render set within darker bands that create a simple and consistent pattern. Gabled elements, tall multi-light casement windows, projecting bays and a modest classical door surround create a coherent, balanced and attractive composition. The Council considers the dwelling to be a non-designated heritage asset. Whilst there is limited evidence before me regarding any formal identification of the building through a local list, conservation area appraisal or similar process, I nevertheless find that the dwelling makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance and significance of this part of the CA, and I have assessed the proposal on that basis.

A vehicle access on the site frontage serves a flat-roofed garage and adjoining shed positioned to the side of the dwelling and separated from it by the driveway. Set at a lower level than the dwelling and partially screened by the front boundary wall, and to a lesser extent by tree planting, these structures nevertheless remain visible within the street scene. They appear functional and visually tired and do not make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the CA.

The development would involve construction of a new porch, in place of a former flat-roofed porch on the side elevation, positioned close to the front of the house and therefore prominent in views from [address]. It would incorporate a dual pitched roof, moulded pediment and rendered panels set within raised bands to reflect the treatment on the host property. Although the porch roof adopts a shallower pitch than the steeply pitched roofs of the main house, this variation would not, in itself, result in significant harm to the appearance of the dwelling.

However, the proposed porch would project noticeably forward of the established building frontage on this part of the elevation and beyond the footprint of the former porch. This would interrupt the dwelling’s balanced composition, where no single element is unduly visually dominant, and would result in a discordant addition that would sit uncomfortably with the character of the property. Given the prominence of the site and the slightly elevated position of the house, the addition would be readily perceptible from [address] and would detract from the character and appearance of this part of the CA.

From the evidence before me, the former porch does not appear to have been a harmonious feature and had been removed well before my site visit. Consequently, I afford its previous existence only limited weight in my assessment.

The proposed garage, with office, would replace, albeit over a larger footprint, the existing flat-roofed garage and shed. It would incorporate a pitched roof form and a traditional palette of materials, including black stained feather-edged weatherboarding and plain clay roof tiles which, although distinct from the host dwelling, would give it the appearance of a traditional ancillary outbuilding.

The submitted details indicate that, due to a degree of excavation, the proposed garage would sit slightly lower within the site than the existing garage and shed. The proposal would also involve a modest reduction in the height of part of the frontage boundary wall. Whilst the proposed garage would appear more prominent within the street scene by reason of its greater scale and pitched roof form, the boundary wall and frontage planting would nevertheless continue to provide partial screening from [address].

I acknowledge the Council’s concerns that the depth of the proposed garage would result in comparatively broad gable ends which would not closely reflect the sharper and narrower gables of the host dwelling. However, the separation created by the driveway, together with the notably lower siting of the garage relative to the dwelling, would reinforce its appearance as a distinct ancillary structure. In these circumstances, I consider the building could appropriately adopt a more independent roof form whilst remaining sympathetic to its surroundings. I therefore do not find the broader gable proportions or roof form harmful to the character or appearance of the dwelling, nor do I consider the structure would compete visually with it.

Whilst the Council officer report refers to potential implications for the health of the frontage planting, no arboricultural evidence has been submitted to demonstrate the development would be likely to result in material harm. Moreover, the Council did not identify this matter within its reasons for refusal. On the evidence before me, I am therefore not persuaded the garage proposal would materially harm the verdant character of this part of the CA. Taking all of these matters into account, and noting the garage would replace existing structures which do not make a positive contribution to the character or appearance of the CA, I find that the proposed garage would remain visually subordinate to the dwelling and, notwithstanding its somewhat increased visibility, would preserve the character and appearance of the CA.

Although the officer report expresses concerns regarding the effect of the proposal on the setting of the nearby [name] listed building at [address], this matter does not form part of the Council’s reasons for refusal. Nevertheless, having had special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building and its setting, as required by section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I find that the separation distance, intervening road corridor and limited visual and spatial relationship between the listed building and the proposed development would preserve the setting and significance of that heritage asset.

[name] have found the proposed garage to preserve the character and appearance of the CA, the proposed porch would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and would fail to preserve the character and appearance and significance of this part of the CA.

For these reasons, the proposal would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the CA, thereby harming its significance. I find the resulting harm to be less than substantial and limited in extent. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires that this harm be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

In undertaking that exercise, and in accordance with paragraph 212 of the Framework, I have given great weight to the conservation of the CA, a designated heritage asset. Whilst the proposal would provide some benefits, these would essentially be private in nature and would not outweigh the harm identified to the significance of the CA.

In the absence of public benefits sufficient to outweigh that harm, the proposal conflicts with Policies SP7, ENV1, DM15 and DM16 of the Colchester Local Plan 2017–2033, which, amongst other things, seek high quality design that responds positively to local character and conserves the significance of heritage assets, including conservation areas.

For the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and there are no material considerations which indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.