To construct a first floor rear extension

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 February 2017 by Mike Fox BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 17 February 2017. Appeal Ref: APP/N1215/D/16/3165360 1 Toll Bar, The Cross, Shillingstone, Blandford Forum, Dorset, DT11 0SW  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 Miss Lillie Watts against the decision of North Dorset District Council.  The application Ref 2/2016/1433/HOUSE, dated 28 September 2016, was refused by notice dated 21 November 2016.  The development proposed is to construct a first floor rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to construct a first floor rear extension at 1 Toll Bar, The Cross, Shillingstone, Blandford Forum, Dorset, DT11 0SW in accordance with the terms of application Ref 2/2016/1433/HOUSE, dated 28 September 2016, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those in the existing building. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, all prefaced with 1393: 01 Site and Location Plan; 02 Existing Plans and Section; 03 Existing Elevations; 04A; Proposed Plans and Sections; and 05A Proposed Elevations, all dated March 2016. Main Issues 2. The main issues are firstly whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Shillingstone Conservation Area, including the setting of the listed Church of the Holy Rood; and the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the next door attached property at no. 2 with particular reference to outlook. Reasons 3. The appeal property is located at the end of a terrace of four traditional cottages within the village of Shillingstone, in the northern part of the Conservation Area. It fronts onto the A357 main road which divides both the village and the Conservation Area. Appeal Decision APP/N1215/D/16/3165360 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 2 Character and appearance of the Conservation Area and setting of the Church of the Holy Rood 4. The relevant statutory requirements in relation to this issue are for the development to either preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area1 and to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the setting of listed buildings2. 5. The character of the Conservation Area around the appeal property is a mix of styles, periods and uses. The historic terraced cottages, which include the appeal property, are classified as a non-designated heritage asset. The key historic building within this part of the Conservation Area is the Grade 1 listed Church of the Holy Rood, which is situated to the north-east of the appeal property. 6. The Council is concerned that the design and scale of the proposal, which it considers to be in a prominent location, fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of Holy Rood Church. It considers that when viewed from the rear, the proposed extension would appear in stark contrast to the “low key, humble additions” of the adjoining cottages. 7. The proposed extension would be visible from the end of the terrace, which obliquely faces the A357, and from behind, where there is a play area and a car park. It would also be visible from the Holy Rood Church to the north-east, around 100m away. It would therefore be visible from the public realm. 8. The proposal would add a first floor extension to an existing rear single storey extension of the terraced property. It would use timber cladding with a natural slate roof and, whilst it would exceed the size of the extensions to the neighbouring properties, it would be significantly lower than the ridge of the terrace. Its pitched roof would not be out of keeping with the existing architecture. The proposal would therefore be subservient to and reflect the design and external materials of the host building. 9. For these reasons I consider that the proposed extension would be sensitive to the character of both the appeal property and the terrace as a whole, and as such would make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness. This would accord with the conservation ethos of the Framework3 which states that the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. As such it would not conflict with the design or conservation policies of the North Dorset Local Plan (i.e. policies 5 and 24). 10. I now turn to the effect of the proposal on the setting of the Grade 1 listed Church of the Holy Rood. The proposed extension would be seen from the church, about 100m to the south-west. The church is set in an extensive churchyard, surrounded by a hedge and a group of mature trees. The churchyard is further separated from the appeal property by an area of open space, a car park and children’s play area. These comprise a series of visual ‘layers’ between the church and the appeal property, and in the summer when 1 The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Section 72 (1). 2 Ibid, Section 66 (1). 3 DCLG: National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); March 2012. Appeal Decision APP/N1215/D/16/3165360 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 3 the trees will be in full leaf, the visual relationship between the church and the appeal property will be even more constricted. 11. From the church entrance looking to the south-west towards the appeal property, the existing Toll Bar terrace appears as a recessive feature in the background. I consider that it has less impact on the setting of the church than the modern, though not unattractive, church centre, the high wire fencing around the centre or the potential noise and visual impacts of parked cars and their reflection of any sunlight in the car park. 12. A number of additions, extensions and alterations have been made to the properties at the Toll Bar terrace over the years. Although they have sometimes been unsympathetic to the historic character and appearance of the terrace, e.g. the UPVC windows, these details are too far away from the church to materially harm its setting. Although the proposal before me is of a larger scale than other extensions to the terrace, its subservience to the existing building, its lower height and appropriate use of external materials, would not harm the church’s setting. 13. Taking all of the above matters into consideration, I conclude on the first main issue that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of either the Conservation Area or the setting of the Church of the Holy Rood. As such, it would not be contrary to the statutory requirement for development to either preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Conservation Areas or pay special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the setting of listed buildings; neither would it be contrary to the relevant policies in the development plan. It would also comply with the principles set out in Section 12 of the Framework ‘Conserving and enhancing the historic environment’. Living conditions 14. The Council considers that the proposed extension would be overbearing on the outlook from the neighbouring property at no.2. The rear extension of the next door property already has a restricted caused by the existing rear extension of the appeal property. This impact on neighbouring outlook appears to be repeated throughout the terrace, where rear extensions have been constructed. The proposal would amount to a modest increase in height, which would affect the outlook from a window at no. 2, which I note serves a utility room. 15. Taking into account the above considerations, I conclude on the second main issue that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at no. 2 with reference to outlook. As such, the proposal would not be contrary to core principle 17 [4] of the Framework, which requires that planning should always seek to secure a good standard of amenity (living conditions) for all existing and future occupants of land or buildings. It would also not be contrary to Local Plan policy 25 which indirectly addresses outlook. Conditions 16. The Council has not suggested any additional conditions to those which appear in the standard questionnaire, and neither do I. In addition to the standard time condition and the condition referring to the approved plans, condition (2) is to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision APP/N1215/D/16/3165360 www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate 4 Conclusion 17. I find that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the setting of the Church of the Holy Rood and as such would comply with the relevant policies in the development plan and the Framework and the underlying primary legislation. It would also not harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers at no. 2 with reference to loss of outlook and therefore would not be contrary to the provisions of the Framework or the relevant policy in the development plan. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Mike Fox INSPECTOR