To erect a white PVC-u conservatory to the rear of the dwelling house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 October 2016 by J F Powis BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 17 November 2016 Appeal Ref: APP/N1215/D/16/3159608 8A Charlton Manor, Charlton Marshall, Dorset DT11 9NY  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 & Mrs J Saunders against the decision of North Dorset District Council.  The application Ref 2/2016/0709/HOUSE, dated 13 May 2016, was refused by notice dated 1 July 2016.  The development proposed is to erect a white PVC-u conservatory to the rear of the dwelling house. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a white PVC-u conservatory to the rear of the dwelling house at 8A Charlton Manor, Charlton Marshall, Dorset DT11 9NY in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2/2016/0709/HOUSE, dated 13 May 2016, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan (1:1250); Block Plan (1:500); Existing Plan Layout dated 10/05/16; Existing Elevations dated 10/05/16; Proposed Plan Layout dated 10/05/16 and Proposed Elevations dated 10/05/16. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the Charlton Marshall Conservation Area and on the setting of the nearby listed Church of St Mary. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a chalet bungalow which forms part of the cul-de-sac of Charlton Manor but backs on to Bournemouth Road. As a rear addition, the proposed conservatory would therefore step toward Bournemouth Road. 4. The appeal property sits within the Charlton Marshall Conservation Area and within the setting of the Church of St Mary which is a Grade I listed building. In determining this appeal, I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the Conservation Appeal Decision APP/N1215/D/16/3159608 2 Area and my statutory duties1 in this regard. I have also had special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed building and my statutory duties2 in this respect. 5. The Charlton Marshall Conservation Area covers the northern part of the village, with its irregular boundary spanning both sides of Bournemouth Road. It is a predominantly residential area characterised by well-preserved historic brickwork with flint detailing interspersed with mature trees and green spaces. The ten dwellings at Charlton Manor are a relatively recent addition to the area, with the appellant indicating that the appeal property received consent in 2006. 6. The Church of St Mary is a parish church with date markings in the 1700s but with elements dating back to the 15th century. Constructed of stone with a tiled roof, it sits close to the north eastern side of Bournemouth Road. It is a prominent building on this main route through the village. The appeal property is located to the south of the church, on the opposite side of the road. 7. A brick wall of considerable height runs along the south western side of this part of Bournemouth Road, enclosing the appeal property, with established planting in the property’s garden extending above and over the wall in places. Due to a low eaves height, most of the north eastern elevation of the host building is obscured from public viewpoints by the brick wall. The proposed development would add a white PVC-u framed conservatory on to the north eastern side of the property of approximately 5.75m in width, 2.5m at its deepest and with a maximum height of approximately 2.43m which would bring it just above the existing eaves line of the chalet bungalow. 8. There is disagreement between the parties as to how visible the conservatory would be when viewed from the area around the listed church. During my visit I viewed the site from public viewpoints around the church including within its arched gateway. From this angle and distance I found that the conservatory would be effectively screened by the existing boundary wall and established foliage behind it such that it would be barely discernible. This finding reflects the appellant’s evidence. Furthermore, I found that the wider setting of the church, which includes longer views toward and away from it along Bournemouth Road, would not be harmed by the development, which would appear as a modest feature on an existing building in the street scene. 9. Given the height of the existing wall, the conservatory would not be visible from the pavement on the south western side of Bournemouth Road. Due to its proposed height, there would be some views of the top of the conservatory from public viewpoints elsewhere in the Conservation Area, most notably travelling along Bournemouth Road by car or walking along the pavement on the north eastern side of the road. 10. I note, however, that the foliage and planting behind the wall that extends to varying heights above it restricts continuous views of the current eaves line. In addition, the conservatory roof would take a shallow monopitch form, sloping away from the host property in the same direction as the main roof of the bungalow which would minimise its bulk when viewed from the north east. As a result, I do not consider that harm would arise from the conservatory’s roof rising to a level slightly above the existing eaves line of the host building. 1 Under s72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 2 Under s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Appeal Decision APP/N1215/D/16/3159608 3 11. Where the top of the conservatory would be visible, the Council has expressed concern about the use of white PVC-u framing in the Conservation Area and referred to recent enforcement action against unauthorised white PVC-u cladding of a gable end in the nearby Charlton House Court. I saw the site but do not have full details of that case to enable me to make a proper assessment of its relevance to this appeal. I did, however, note a number of other examples of white PVC-u windows and conservatories in the surrounding Conservation Area. 12. This included a white PVC-u conservatory on the south east elevation of an adjacent property in Charlton Manor which also shares a boundary with Bournemouth Road. Whilst that conservatory is set further back from Bournemouth Road than the appeal development would be, its hipped roof can be easily seen from this direction. I am also mindful that the host property has a mix of painted wood and white PVC-u windows as well as two white ‘wood effect’ PVC-u dormer window surrounds on its north eastern elevation which are clearly visible in the street scene. In these circumstances, I do not consider that the use of white PVC-u in the proposed conservatory would appear out of keeping with the host property or cause unacceptable harm to its surroundings. 13. Having regard to all these matters, I consider that the proposal would have a neutral effect on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area as a whole. I therefore conclude that the significance of the Conservation Area would be preserved. In addition, the proposal would cause no harm to the setting of the Church of St Mary, meaning that the significance of the listed building would be preserved. Consequently, I find no conflict with Policies 5, 24 and 25 of the North Dorset Local Plan, Part 1 (adopted January 2016) which together seek good design which protects the historic environment, or the National Planning Policy Framework. Conditions 14. In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty. Conclusions 15. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. J F Powis INSPECTOR