Construction of a brick garden wall and timber fence to replace the existing fence and hedge, retaining 2 Ash trees and a section of box hedge, and planting new replacement trees

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 January 2018 by Chris Couper BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22nd January 2018. Appeal Ref: APP/J3720/D/17/3186205 Tapestry Cottage, 5 Tavern Lane, Shottery, Stratford upon Avon CV37 9HE  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 Dr D and Dr A L Langman against the decision of Stratford on Avon District Council.  The application Ref 17/01905/FUL, dated 28 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 1 September 2017.  The development proposed is the construction of a brick garden wall and timber fence to replace the existing fence and hedge, retaining 2 Ash trees and a section of box hedge, and planting new replacement trees. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Shottery Conservation Area, and its effect on the setting of a listed building. Reasons 3. Conservation areas and listed buildings are defined as designated heritage assets in the National Planning Policy Framework (‘Framework’). Framework paragraphs 131 and 132 state that in determining planning applications account should be taken of the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets, and that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to its conservation. This is in line with Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in respect of development affecting conservation areas, which states that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing their character or appearance; and Section 66(1) of the Act which requires that special regard be had to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings. 4. Tapestry Cottage is a Grade II listed building, which falls within the Shottery Conservation Area (‘CA’). It is a timber-framed, seventeenth/eighteenth century cottage with a thatched roof, which is sited at the end of a short row. It sits on a large plot which backs onto a public footpath. Appeal Decision APP/J3720/D/17/3186205 2 5. I observed on my visit that the CA’s character partly derives from landscaping, and verdant open areas, which penetrate deep into the village, and add to its semi-rural ambiance. However, boundary treatment within it is varied. As well as hedgerows, there are brick walls, examples of which are provided at appendix 1 of the appellants’ grounds of appeal, and in the Shottery Conservation Appraisal 1992 (‘SCAA’). 6. The public footpath is described by the Council as marking a significant and historic route through this part of the CA, and its importance as a semi-rural approach to the village from Stratford is referenced in the SCAA. Although Bramley House next door to this site has a modern brick wall on it northern boundary, on the whole, the footpath’s edges are marked by softer, more open features, such as hedgerows and low picket fencing. 7. The appellants have provided persuasive evidence, including an extract from an 1889 OS plan, that Tapestry Cottage’s historic curtilage did not extend as far as the footpath. Be that as it may, the existing hedgerow on the cottage’s north-eastern boundary provides a landscaped transition from its garden across the narrow footpath to the sports field beyond, and through which, looking from the footpath, glimpses of the cottage are gained. I have no cogent evidence of the cottage’s original boundary treatment, but in my view, a soft, landscaped boundary is consistent with its probable historic associations with farming of the surrounding land. 8. New landscaping is proposed in the garden, some of which could grow over the boundary. Notwithstanding that, and the relatively poor quality of some of the existing trees and shrubs (as evidenced by the Tree Report by Cotswold Wildlife Surveys), the proposed 1.8m to 2.1m high wall and fence, would provide a substantial, hard feature next to the footpath. That would be out of keeping with the prevailing character and materials of boundary treatment here. 9. Additionally, although the proposed boundary would be set in by 225mm, given its height and approximately 26.5m length, it would result in a rather overbearing and enclosed feeling along this part of the footpath. As there would no longer be any glimpses of Tapestry Cottage’s rear face, the hard edge on this boundary would limit any appreciation of the cottage’s rural origins, and would diminish the sense of a smooth transition from the village to the countryside. 10. Although the appellants state that the wall would be finished with red stock bricks, laid in an English Garden Wall bond with coping, I have limited details of its proposed materials and construction before me. Whilst only a 3m length of close boarded timber fence is proposed where the roots of Ash trees require protection, that would create a markedly suburban impression. Consequently, I am not satisfied that even with conditions requiring the approval of the boundary’s materials, capping and bonding, the proposal would provide a suitably soft and traditional appearance appropriate to this historic, semi-rural setting. 11. Whilst there are other brick walls in the CA, including along a stretch of Tavern Lane, many appear to be quite historic features, are deeper within the village where they are more closely associated with buildings, or are adjacent to a carriageway which is significantly wider than this footpath. They do not therefore change my conclusions regarding the harm that this scheme would cause in this location. Appeal Decision APP/J3720/D/17/3186205 3 12. The post and rail fence (with new yew hedge) within Tapestry Cottage’s garden, that has recently been given planning permission, does not change my overall conclusions regarding this scheme’s impacts. 13. For the above reasons the scheme would not preserve the setting of Tapestry Cottage, and it would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. As well as failing the statutory tests, the scheme would therefore conflict with Policy CS.8 of the Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2011 to 2031 (2016) (‘SCS’) which requires designated heritage assets to be protected and enhanced. It would also conflict with the more general design requirements of SCS Policy CS.9, and with the broad sentiment of SCS Policy CS.20, that development shall improve the quality of the public realm, enhance the sense of place, and reflect the character and distinctiveness of the locality. 14. However, in the language of the Framework and SCS Policy CS.8, the harm caused to these designated heritage assets would be less than substantial. In those circumstances the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing the asset’s optimum viable use. 15. Although the footpath is quite narrow, I have limited evidence that its width creates significant problems for passing pedestrians, people pushing buggies or wheelchair users. Even if it can at times be restricted by adjacent vegetation, it seems to me that that, and the replacement of any damaged plants, is a maintenance and management issue, which does not justify the harm that this scheme would cause. Consequently I am not persuaded that setting the wall 225mm off the footpath edge would constitute a significant public benefit. Conclusions 16. Summing up, the Framework states that when considering the impact of a development on the significance of a designated heritage asset (including development within its setting) great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. 17. Whilst the harm caused to the Shottery Conservation Area and the setting of the Grade II listed Tapestry Cottage would be less than substantial, the scheme’s public benefits would be very limited. Furthermore, I am not persuaded that this scheme is the only way in which the issue of overhanging vegetation affecting the use of the adjacent footpath, if indeed that is a significant problem, could be addressed. Consequently, the harm caused would not be outweighed by any limited public benefits. Having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is therefore dismissed. Chris Couper INSPECTOR