New porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 January 2017 by Jane Miles BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 17 January 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/F1610/D/16/3154708 2 Park Villas, Upper Dowdeswell, Cheltenham GL54 4LT  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Fellows against the decision of Cotswold District Council.  The application ref: 16/02074/FUL, dated 19 May 2016, was refused by notice dated 18 July 2016.  The development proposed is a new porch. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Reasons 2. The appeal property is within the Dowdeswell Conservation Area (CA) and the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The CA is a designated heritage asset. Not least due to the age and surviving historic character of Park Villas the Council considers that it should be treated as a non-designated heritage asset. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed porch on the character, appearance and significance of these designated and non- designated heritage assets. 3. The CA designation covers an extensive area comprising several different groupings of buildings and intervening areas of countryside. Upper Dowdeswell is one such grouping and its key characteristics include the use of stone in buildings, walls and other features and the repetition of forms, design and architectural detailing. Examples of the latter include stone mullioned windows and the hood mouldings above the windows and doors, in buildings which appear to be of similar age. These features are all important contributors to the CA’s character and its significance as a heritage asset. 4. Park Villas is an attractive and substantial traditional stone building. Due to its size, siting and its position at a slightly higher level than the access lane it is a prominent building in this part of the CA. Moreover in terms of materials, design and architectural detailing it is similar to other nearby dwellings. Although now occupied as a single dwelling it was originally a semi-detached pair, which explains the two adjacent entrance doors linked by a continuous hood moulding which feature in its symmetrical front elevation. The pair of doors and associated moulding are important features of this building’s character and indicators of its previous history, thereby contributing to the character, appearance and significance of both the building and the CA. Appeal Decision APP/F1610/D/16/3154708 2 5. The proposed porch would, in effect, result in the loss of these important features and for this reason alone it would detract from the building’s character and heritage significance. In addition the depth, height and solidity of the porch would result in an unduly prominent feature that would detract from the proportions and harmony of the building’s front elevation. I find that to be the case even though it would reflect the form, style and materials of the main building. The roof in particular, extending up between the first floor windows to a ridge line well above their sill level, would have a detrimental visual impact on the overall composition of the front elevation. It follows that, due to those harmful effects, the porch would also diminish the contribution the building makes to the CA’s character, appearance and heritage significance. 6. I have taken into account firstly the appellant’s case that the hood moulding could be obscured (or lost) by constructing a porch of dimensions within GPDO1 permitted development limits. However, as is apparent from the illustrative drawing submitted with the appeal, such a porch would be neither as deep nor as tall as the one proposed in this case. That would avoid some of the harmful impacts I have identified and I therefore give this point little weight. 7. Secondly the appellant provides an example of a similar porch for which planning permission was granted elsewhere in the North Cotswolds. Whether or not that property is also a non-designated heritage asset in a conservation area is not specified. In any event it is apparent from the drawing provided that the porch in that case was proposed on an elevation of much simpler design with only one window at first floor level. That would create a markedly different visual impact and again therefore I give this point little weight. 8. In summary I conclude the proposed porch would harm the character and appearance of Park Villas and it would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the CA, thereby diminishing the significance of these heritage assets. In terms of guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework the harm would be less than substantial but there would be harm nonetheless. Paragraph 134 of the Framework relating to designated heritage assets expects any such harm to be weighed against a proposal’s public benefits. 9. In this case however the benefits would be private rather than public. Neither the porch’s function in terms of rationalising the single use of the building nor the lack of any material harm to the wider AONB landscape would be public benefits, and nor would any other matters weigh in its favour. Moreover I understand planning permission has been granted for an alternative porch design that would avoid the adverse impacts of this appeal proposal. Overall therefore, due to the appeal proposal’s adverse impacts and the resultant conflicts with the development plan (most notably saved Policies 15 and 42 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2001-2011 (2006)) and with the Framework, I conclude the appeal must fail. Jane Miles INSPECTOR 1 In full, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015