Erection of two storey side extension with lower ground floor to rear

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 October 2017 by Elaine Benson BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 10 November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/F1610/D/17/3178437 40 Park Road, Blockley GL56 9BZ  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 and Mrs S Reynolds against the decision of Cotswold District Council.  The application Ref 17/00722/FUL, dated 19 February 2017, was refused by notice dated 13 April 2017.  The development proposed is erection of two storey side extension with lower ground floor to rear. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. Planning permission was originally sought for an extension that was level with the front elevation of the appeal property (No 40) (the original scheme). The Council sought and received amendments to the proposal which included stepping back the front of the extension (the revised scheme). One of the reasons for refusal was based on these amendments and reflects comments made by the Council’s conservation advisor. The appellants would like both schemes to be considered in this appeal. Public notification and other consultations were carried out in respect of the original scheme. Accordingly, I consider that no parties would be prejudiced by considering it alongside the revised scheme that was determined by the Council. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this appeal are the effects of the proposed extensions on the character and appearance of the terrace of which they would form part and the street scene, and the statutory duty to consider the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Blockley Conservation Area. Reasons 4. The appeal site is within the Blockley Conservation Area, a designated heritage asset. The Blockley Conservation Area Statement (BCAS) and its accompanying maps describe the character and appearance of the area and identify its important attributes. These include the distinctive Park Road terraced cottages and the view obtained from between the 2 terraces containing Nos 40 and its Appeal Decision APP/F1610/D/17/3178437 2 neighbour at No 41 (No 41). These attributes, along with the historic development of the village contribute towards the significance of the designated heritage asset. 5. The terrace in which No 40 stands (the appeal terrace) is one of a number on the east side of Park Road which date from the 19th century. They comprise traditional Cotswold stone construction with pitched, slate roofs. The terraces differ slightly in age, style and construction but the height, width and front elevations of the cottages within the various terraces are generally uniform. They are little changed and retain their character. The outlines of the terraces can be seen from lower levels in the village. The strength of the continuous linear form and design consistency of the terraces make a great contribution to their character and distinctiveness and those of Park Road. Park Road has one of the few linear layouts in the conservation area and extends from the village centre to the surrounding countryside. 6. In combination these features contribute towards the distinctive character, or significance, of Park Road and the conservation area. The Council considers that the appeal terrace is a non-designated heritage asset by virtue of its age, traditional materials and construction techniques, its architectural design and the surviving features. There are no reasons to disagree. 7. No 40 is a two-storey end of terrace cottage which is three-storeys at the rear due to the steeply sloping ground levels in the locality. Both of the proposed side extensions would conceal its gable end. However, I am satisfied that this gable and the limited publically available views of it are not essential to the significance of the non-designated heritage asset or that of the conservation area. 8. The heights and widths of the two schemes would give the general appearance of adding a further cottage onto the end of the terrace, increasing its historic length. The revised scheme would be set back from the front of No 40 and this would result in lower eaves and roof ridge lines. In design terms it would be clear that it was an extension to the original property. However, the setback would disrupt the strong characteristic linear form and ‘flow’ of the terrace and the extension would attract some attention away from the form of the terrace. Therefore, the revised scheme would harm the significance of the conservation area and the terrace, and would be detrimental to the street scene. I agree with the Council’s conservation adviser and the appellants that the original scheme would more appropriately relate to the historic form of the appeal terrace than the revised scheme. 9. However, in terms of more detailed design factors, the repetition of the door and window openings within the narrow frontages of each cottage makes a significant and positive contribution to the character and appearance of the row of terraces and consequently the conservation area. Whilst the position, scale and form of the proposed windows would replicate those found on No 40 and its neighbours, the front elevation of both extensions would not fully respect the arrangement of openings on the fronts of the terraces. The introduction of a greater area of blank stonework at ground level and the absence of a doorway would appear incongruous and would disrupt the appearance of the appeal terrace as a whole, would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the designated and non-designated heritage assets and would harm their significance. Appeal Decision APP/F1610/D/17/3178437 3 10. For the reasons I have set out, the construction of both extensions would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area or those of the appeal terrace. This harm would amount to less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated and non-designated heritage assets. 11. Turning to the significance of the space, or gap, between the 2 neighbouring terraces, there are far reaching views across the lower-lying levels of the village and towards the countryside beyond, although public views from this position are limited to a degree by the extent and depth of the terraces and by the narrowness of Park Road. This view is identified as important in the BCAS and I agree. The gaps between each of the terraces in Park Road vary in size, with the space between the 2 terraces containing No 40 and No 41 being one of the largest. The width of the latter space would be reduced as a result of the construction of both of the proposed extensions. 12. In considering the effect on the character and appearance of the conservation area of the proposed reduction of this gap, I have carefully considered the submitted evidence and my observations relating to the available views over the countryside, the differing ground levels, the presence of the attractive stone wall demarking the front boundary of No 41’s parking area and the absence of any permanent front boundary to the land at the side of No 40. The majority of the existing gap relates to land associated with No 41. This cottage is at significantly lower ground level than its parking area which aligns with the level of No 40. Therefore, even if the appeal extensions were to be built, a wide gap between the extension and No 41 would remain. This would also be proportionate to the other spaces between the Park Road terraces. 13. Although it would change, there would be no loss of an important view and I give less weight than the Council to the importance of the gap as a visual break between the neighbouring terraces. Taking all of the foregoing factors into account I conclude that the appeal proposals would not diminish the importance of the historic view which would be preserved by the retention of the space at the side of No 41, thereby also preserving the character and appearance of the conservation area and those of the appeal terrace. Consequently, there would be no harm to significance in this regard. Nonetheless, this does not outweigh the harm identified above. 14. For the reasons set out I conclude that the proposed extensions would conflict with saved Policy 15 of the Cotswold District Local Plan which among other things indicates that within conservation areas development will be permitted provided that it preserves or enhances the special character or appearance of the area. There would also be conflict with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) to conserve the historic environment, with which Policy 15 is consistent. There would be no conflict in respect of Policy 15’s requirement that development should not result in the loss of open spaces, which by their openness make a valuable contribution to the character or appearance or allow important views into and out of the conservation area. 15. In accordance with the requirements of the Framework I have determined whether there are public benefits which would outweigh the identified less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage assets. The benefits accruing from the proposal would be solely for the appellants. No other public benefits have been put forward with this appeal. Appeal Decision APP/F1610/D/17/3178437 4 Other matters 16. Although it is not in dispute between the main parties, I am required to have regard to conserving the special landscape qualities of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The proposed extensions would be seen within the wider landscape, including in views from more recent development to the east. Nonetheless, they would be seen within the context of the existing terraces and would comprise matching materials. I therefore consider that their physical presence would not adversely affect the landscape qualities of the surrounding AONB but would blend in sufficiently with their surroundings. In this regard the proposals would comply with requirements of the Framework to conserve the special landscape qualities of the AONB. 17. All other matters raised have been taken into account. None affect my conclusions on the main issues. For the reasons given the appeal is dismissed. Elaine Benson INSPECTOR