Appeal 6007022

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellants appeal submission contains amended documents providing additional information with regards to the proposed schedule of repairs and refurbishments and the proposed schedule of materials. This does not represent an amendment to the scheme. The Council has had the opportunity to comment on this information. On this basis, I do not consider that any party would be unfairly prejudiced by my consideration of the submitted documents in determining this appeal.

The application form cites a different address to that shown on the planning decisions. However, it is evident that they refer to the same appeal site and development. For consistency, I have amended the address in the banner heading above to reflect that used in the planning decisions

I noted on my site visit that the development, including the proposed internal changes to the basement level, had already commenced. I have, however, dealt with the appeal on the basis of the plans before me.

The appeal links back to an original permission under reference 105975/FUL/21 dated 16 May 2022, for the redevelopment of existing residential accommodation, including demolition of existing extensions, internal reconfigurations, replacement extensions and separate new build element to create a combined total of 20 no. apartments and external works to facilitate the use.

Changes to that approval were secured under permission reference 111338/VAR/23, which sought to amend the drainage strategy plans and the submission of information to allow for the discharge of condition numbers 20 (bird nesting report) and 24 (drainage management and maintenance plan).

I therefore consider the main issues to be the effect that varying the conditions would have on the character and appearance of the area, including the non-designated heritage asset (NDHA), and on biodiversity.

The appeal property is a substantial detached mid-19th century villa, recognised by the parties as a NDHA of historic, architectural and aesthetic value. It sits within an attractive, predominantly residential area characterised by traditional two-storey semi-detached and detached dwellings, typically set back from the road within landscaped front gardens. Despite historic alterations to the appeal building and its spacious grounds, including extensions and other development, a strong degree of architectural integrity and historic fabric remains. Together with its prominent, elevated position, the building continues to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal site benefits from planning permission to change the use of the existing building for additional residential accommodation along with a variety of associated external alterations to the building and surrounding grounds. Prior to those approved works commencing, the building exhibited a variety of architectural features including steeply pitched and gabled slate roof, with fish scale patterns in places, decorative ridge tiles, overhanging eaves, pierced bargeboards, prominent chimney stacks and many original painted timber sliding-sash windows.

The appeal relates to amendments to the previously approved scheme including elements of the external materials, boundary treatment and the internal layout of the basement level. The proposed variations do not therefore affect the overall number of dwellings to be provided as part of the scheme.

Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that the effect of a proposal on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset be taken into account, with a balanced judgement having regard to the scale of harm or loss and the asset’s significance. Furthermore, paragraph 140 also advises that the quality of approved development should not be materially diminished between permission and completion, for example through alterations to approved details such as materials.

The original windows had delicate proportions with deep reveals, slim frames and decorative mullions which continued through to the stone cills. However, the submitted information is inconsistent, variously referring to timber, timber-look and uPVC materials, and to both sash and casement windows. My site visit confirmed that the replacement windows installed are timber-look, uPVC flush-fit casement windows, some incorporating beading within the external reveals. The submission also indicates an intention to add external beading and horns to all windows, although these are not fully detailed within any of the submitted drawings.

The submitted details are acceptable in part. The use of Chinese natural slate and the proposed ridge tiles reflect the previous arrangement and are acceptable. The principle of the lightwell, entrance door, railings and rainwater goods are also acceptable, and the timber slat cladding to the basement lightwells would not be visually intrusive. Boundary fencing is typical of the area and could be softened through landscaping.

Due to inconsistencies within the submitted information, the precise appearance and detailing of the replacement windows remains unclear. Nevertheless, the installed units appear notably bulkier and lack the refined detailing of the originals. Given the importance of windows in evidencing the significance of a heritage asset, such changes would have a harmful effect. Furthermore, the eaves detail contains unclear references to ‘like-for-like’ provision but is insufficiently defined and appears inconsistent with the existing detailing. The proposed basement render would remain prominent, and the reliance on a RAL colour alone fails to provide certainty as to its acceptability. In addition, the final finish of the entrance door and the precise siting of the railings remain unclear.

Given the above, and on the basis of the totality of the evidence before me, I cannot be certain that the proposed variations to the conditions as sought would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including to the significance of the NDHA.

Notwithstanding the overall benefit of securing the retention of the non-designated heritage asset, I find that the proposed variations to the conditions stated offer no clear benefits sufficient to outweigh the identified harm to its significance.

Consequently, varying the conditions as proposed would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the NDHA. Accordingly, there would be conflict with [name]-P1 and JP-P2 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document 2022-2039 (March 2024) (the DPD) and Policy R1 of the Trafford Local Plan: [name] (January 2012) (the CS). These policies collectively seek to ensure development which conserves and enhances the historic environment, respects local character and identity, contributes to quality design and enhances existing features of historic significance. Furthermore, these policies are consistent with the aims of the Framework.

The proposal seeks to vary condition 21, with regard to the timing for the submission, approval and implementation of the soft landscaping scheme from prior to first occupation to within 12 months of occupation. The scheme would include native and non-native flowering perennial species to provide pollen and nectar source for invertebrates such that it would support biodiversity. This is stated as being required due to differing timescales between the refurbishment and occupation of the existing building (Phase 1) and the approved new-build dwellings (Phase 2), citing potential damage to early planting from the ongoing construction activities and a need to allow for suitable weather conditions.

There is insufficient certainty that Phase 2 would be completed within the proposed 12‐month period, and no clear evidence has been provided to substantiate this timeframe. Furthermore, no adequate justification has been advanced to demonstrate why landscaping could not be protected during construction, as is typical in phased developments, or why prevailing weather conditions would preclude planting. The proposal would result in the site remaining unfinished for a significant prolonged period following occupation, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the area and biodiversity. Moreover, the suggested condition wording lacks the precision and enforceability that would be necessary to meet the relevant tests within the Framework.

Notwithstanding that the soft landscaping would still be delivered at a later date; I find that the proposed delays would have a harmful effect on biodiversity. Accordingly, there would be conflict with Policy JP-G8 of the DPD and Policy R2 of the CS which together seek to increase the quality, quantity and diversity of habitats, whilst protecting and enhancing the natural environment and landscape character.

I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns over the Council’s handling of the applications during the course of the project. However, this is not a matter that I can consider under this planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal.

While the Council confirm that they are unable to demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites, with a housing land supply of 4.7 years, the proposal before me seeks only to vary conditions attached to an extant permission. It does not seek to alter the number of residential units to be delivered by the extant permission. This does not therefore lead me to an alternative conclusion.

For the reasons set out above, overall, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.