Frontage carport

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 April 2018 by Thomas Hatfield BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 18th May 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/F4410/D/17/3189836 Home Farm, Stockbridge Lane, Doncaster, South Yorkshire, DN6 9JF  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 Steve Warner against the decision of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/00857/FUL, dated 3 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 20 October 2017.  The development proposed is a frontage carport. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Application for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr Steve Warner against Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Procedural Matter 3. An additional plan was submitted at the appeal stage that shows 3D images of the proposed carport. This plan does not alter the design of the carport or the proposed materials, and is provided for illustrative purposes. The Council has not objected to the submission of this plan. I do not consider that any party would be prejudiced by my acceptance of this plan, and I have therefore taken it into account in determining the appeal. Main Issues 4. The main issues are: (a) Whether the development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Owston Conservation Area; (b) The effect of the development on the settings of the Grade I listed Church of All Saints and Grade II listed Garden Cottage/Home Farmhouse; and (c) The effect of the development on the character and appearance the area with reference to its effect on the nearby protected walnut tree. Reasons Appeal Decision APP/F4410/D/17/3189836 2 Conservation area 5. The appeal site is located within the Owston Conservation Area, which encompasses the former estate village and grounds of Owston Hall. It is set at the end of a long drive and is remote from the surrounding road network. The village consists of a compact arrangement of buildings which are predominantly constructed in limestone. The significance of the conservation area stems in part from its large number of well-preserved buildings and spaces and estate village character. 6. The carport would be attached to an existing garage at the rear of Garden Cottage/Home Farmhouse. The garage is of recent construction but is built in a vernacular style using traditional materials. It has an attractive appearance that complements the character of the conservation area, and it is modest in scale. The proposed carport would significantly increase the bulk of the garage and would bring it closer to the road. Its oak framed design would appear out of keeping with the surrounding buildings, which are predominantly constructed in limestone even where some oak is used. The incorporation of photovoltaic panels along one side of the roof pitch would also appear incongruous, and would obscure the pattern of the roof slates. The panels would also be positioned next to the road and would be clearly visible to passers-by. It would be a prominent, unsympathetic addition in a sensitive corner position that would be conspicuous when entering the village from the east. Whilst no objections were made by interested parties, that does not alter my view regarding the development. 7. The appellant states that other extensions and alterations have been approved within the conservation area. However, the full details of those cases are not before me, and any comparability to the current proposal is therefore unclear. In any case, I have come to my own view on the appeal rather than relying on the approach the Council may have taken elsewhere. 8. For the above reasons, I conclude that the development would fail to preserve the character and appearance of the Owston Conservation Area. This harm would be ‘less than substantial’ in the context of paragraphs 133 and 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’). However, the modest renewable energy benefits associated with the proposed photovoltaic panels do not outweigh the harm to the conservation area in this case. 9. The development would therefore be contrary to Policy CS15 of the Doncaster Core Strategy (2012), saved Policies ENV 25 and ENV 54 of the Doncaster Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (1998), and guidance in the Framework relating to designated heritage assets. Setting of nearby listed buildings 10. The appeal site is located in close proximity to the Grade I listed Church of All Saints and Grade II listed Garden Cottage/Home Farmhouse. The Church of All Saints is an imposing structure with a tower that is prominent within the surrounding area. It is constructed mostly in limestone and originates from the C11th albeit with later alterations. Its significance derives from a number of factors, including its age, its form and substantial appearance, and its connections with the surrounding area. Garden Cottage and Home Farmhouse are semi-detached properties that together form a T-plan building. They comprise an attractive building on a corner plot within the village, constructed Appeal Decision APP/F4410/D/17/3189836 3 in traditional limestone rubble. Its historic interest lies in its age, appearance, and links to the estate village. The significance of both listed buildings is enhanced by their group value along with other nearby listed buildings and the Owston Conservation Area. 11. The proposed carport would be located in a prominent corner position fronting the road. It would significantly increase the bulk of the garage and its prominence within the street. As set out above, I also consider that it would incorporate unsympathetic features and would be out of keeping with the surrounding area. By increasing the bulk and prominence of the garage, the proposal would encroach into views of the Church of All Saints from the north and east. It would also be prominent in views of Garden Cottage/Home Farmhouse from along Stockbridge Lane. In this position, it would negatively affect important views of the listed buildings, and the way they are experienced from the surrounding lanes. 12. For the above reasons, I conclude that the development would harm the settings of the Grade I listed Church of All Saints and Grade II listed Garden Cottage/Home Farmhouse. This harm would be ‘less than substantial’ in the context of paragraphs 133 and 134 of the Framework. However, the modest renewable energy benefits associated with the proposed photovoltaic panels do not outweigh the harm in this case. 13. The development would therefore be contrary to Policy CS15 of the Doncaster Core Strategy (2012) and saved Policies ENV 34 and ENV 54 of the Doncaster UDP (1998), and guidance in the Framework relating to designated heritage assets. Protected walnut tree 14. The proposed carport would be in close proximity to a protected walnut tree to the north. This is an attractive and characterful tree that contributes significantly to the appearance of the area. 15. The Council’s Decision Notice states that the pruning required to accommodate the development would be physiologically damaging to the walnut tree. In this regard, the Delegation Report and Tree Officer comments state that the development would require the removal of part of a low branch arising west above the boundary wall at 2.5 metres. However, at the time of my site visit, the majority of that branch had already been removed following the grant of consent Ref 17/01171/TCON. Whilst the erection of the carport may result in a need for further pruning, this would be to smaller branches and would be limited in scope. Moreover, it would have only a minor impact on the root protection area through the excavation of post holes for the carport legs. I further note that the application site is already hard surfaced. 16. For the above reasons, I conclude that the development would not significantly undermine the longer term existence and visual contribution of the protected walnut tree. It would therefore accord with Policy CS16 of the Doncaster Core Strategy (2012) and saved Policy ENV 21 of the Doncaster UDP (1998). These policies seek, amongst other things, to retain existing trees and steer new development away from trees and woodlands. Appeal Decision APP/F4410/D/17/3189836 4 Conclusion 17. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Thomas Hatfield INSPECTOR