4 car garage store

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 March 2018 by A J Mageean BA (Hons) BPl PhD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/T3725/D/17/3191056 The Glebe House, Southam Road, Radford Semele, Leamington Spa CV31 1TA  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 Greg Dyson against the decision of Warwick District Council.  The application Ref W/17/1491, dated 10 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 15 November 2017.  The development proposed is a 4 car garage store. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a 4 car garage store at The Glebe House, Southam Road, Radford Semele, Leamington Spa CV31 1TA in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref W/17/1491, dated 10 August 2017, 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 materials used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby approved shall match those used in the main house. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: FPB GH-001; FPB GH-002 Rev A; FPB GH-003 Rev A. 4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the measures set out in the Arboricultural and Planning Integration Report dated 11 September 2017 (Ref: GHA/DS/14460:17). Procedural Matter 2. The appellant refers to post-application revisions to the design of the garage roof, however it is not clear which plan is referred to. I have therefore considered this scheme on the basis of the plans submitted to the Council. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the setting of The Glebe House, a Grade II listed building. Appeal Decision APP/T3725/D/17/3191056 2 Reasons 4. The Glebe House, a substantial classically styled two storey property, is set within a moderately sized plot surrounded by a brick wall. The setting of this building is somewhat compromised by the fact that three of its sides are closely adjacent to modern residential development, though there is a more open aspect to the south, where the upper levels of the front and southern side elevations of this property are visible from the A425 across the open field. 5. Its main front elevation is set back considerably from the road and towards the back of this plot. The larger area at the front of the plot is laid out with a formal driveway and garden areas, providing an appropriate setting for this elevation. The brick built outbuildings to the north are visible but partly screened behind a high brick wall. 6. The rear elevation of this property is similar in appearance to the front, though without the impressive entrance. The space around it is somewhat less formal, and I understand that it has been significantly reduced in size in the past with the construction of the new rectory to the east. However, the steps and retaining wall from the lawn area to the lower level area are attractive features of the setting of this building. This area is partly enclosed, with a line of leylandii trees along the rear boundary and a substantial Yew tree in the south eastern corner. The less visible and more informal nature of this area means that it is less significant as part of the setting of this building, particularly in comparison with the more formal setting provided by the front garden areas. 7. The proposed garage, whilst a reasonably large structure, would be positioned in the south eastern corner of this plot at a significantly lower level than the main building. Furthermore, the existing Yew tree would screen a large proportion of this building from view. As such this structure would not be visually intrusive from either the main building itself or in the surrounding area. Furthermore, the fact that it would be constructed from matching brick with a shallow pitched slate roof and timber doors would mean that its appearance would complement that of the main building. 8. Overall the reasonably discrete location of the garage combined with its modest design would mean that it would appear as a subordinate addition. As such it would not cause harm to the special interest or significance of this heritage asset. 9. I conclude that this development would have a neutral effect and therefore would preserve the setting of this Grade II listed building. In this regard it would comply with the requirement of the Act1 that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting. It would not conflict with the requirements of the Warwick District Local Plan 2017 Policy HE1 which refers to development which would result in substantial or less than substantial harm to designated heritage assets. Whilst not included in the Decision Notice, the Council has also referred me to several other policies, the most relevant of which is BE1 1 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Appeal Decision APP/T3725/D/17/3191056 3 which requires new development to respect local architectural and historic distinctiveness. I am also satisfied that this scheme complies with these requirements. Conclusion 10. For the reasons set out above the appeal is allowed. This is subject to conditions requiring development to be carried out in accordance with approved plans to provide certainty, and requiring materials to match the main house to ensure that the setting of the listed building is preserved. A condition requiring that development be carried out in accordance with the Arboricultural and Planning Integration Report is required to protect the trees adjacent to the development, particularly the Yew tree. AJ Mageean INSPECTOR