Erection of outbuilding in rear garden

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 16 March 2021 by R E Jones BSc (Hons), DipTP, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6 April 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/F0114/D/20/3265767 17 St. Mark’s Road, Bath BA2 4PA • 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 Ryan Stainsby against the decision of Bath and North East Somerset Council. • The application Ref 20/02857/FUL, dated 10 August 2020, was refused by notice dated 3 November 2020. • The development proposed is erection of outbuilding in rear garden. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. In the banner heading above, I have amended the description of development used in the application form and removed the term ‘retrospective’ as this is not an act of development. 3. It was noted during my site visit that the proposal has partly commenced. While the overall proportion of the outbuilding, as commenced, appears comparable to the submitted plans, I cannot be sure that the site at present accords with the appeal scheme. I have therefore dealt with the appeal on the basis of it being a proposed development as shown on the plans. Main Issues 4. The main issues are: i) The effect of the proposed outbuilding on the character and appearance of the area having regard to: • whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Bath Conservation Area; and • the setting of the adjacent listed terrace; ii) The effect of the proposed outbuilding on the living conditions of nearby occupiers, with particular reference to outlook and light. Reasons Heritage 5. The appeal site comprises a 3-storey mid-terrace dwelling and its rear garden area, that along with the dwellings at Nos 15, 16 and 18 St Mark’s Road, forms a Grade II listed building (the listed terrace). The appeal site also lies within Appeal Decision APP/F0114/D/20/3265767 2 the Bath Conservation Area (BCA). I therefore have statutory duties to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area and to have special regard to preserving the setting of the listed building. 6. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource which should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. It also advises that any harm or loss to designated heritage assets should require clear and convincing justification. Listed Building 7. The listed terrace comprises four properties that form part of a longer extended terrace. They are built in ashlar dressed Bath stone and have uniformly arranged sash windows. The rear of the terrace contains a number of later additions at ground floor level that face the narrow and steeply rising terrace gardens. The historic interest and significance of the listed terrace lies partly in its uniform scale and historic detailing. 8. The setting of the listed terrace includes the rear gardens and those that adjoin it. The middle and upper sections of the terraced gardens are enclosed by boundary fences and walls. Garden trees rise above the boundary enclosures and are visible among parcels of lawn and planting beds. Steps and retaining wall structures are an inherent feature of the gardens and are visible from the rear of properties. Although visible, these assimilate into the rising topography, while being partially screened and softened by the taller garden trees and the adjacent planting beds and lawns. Therefore, the listed terrace derives a great deal of its significance from the open and verdant terraced gardens, which provide an attractive backdrop and sense of enclosure. 9. The proposed outbuilding would occupy an elevated position in the middle section of the garden terrace and would rise appreciably above the property boundaries and the more open spaces these enclose. It would cover a substantial part of the garden’s width with only narrow gaps either side of the structure separating it from the neighbouring boundaries with Nos 16 and 18 St Mark’s Road (Nos 16 and 18). In the context of the adjoining gardens, the proposed outbuilding’s scale and elevated siting would appear obtrusive and strident. As a consequence, it would unacceptably erode the verdant backdrop to the rear of the listed terrace and nearby properties, and in doing so would harm the setting of the listed building. 10. The appellant has proposed that the exterior of the outbuilding incorporates a “living wall” on three of its sides. The planting would soften the structure’s appearance somewhat, yet the roof profile of the building would be exposed, while the scale and box-like appearance of the structure would be apparent when viewed from the rear of nearby gardens and dwellings. Moreover, whilst there would be some ecological benefits, the planting would result in the outbuilding appearing contrived and would not integrate coherently into this rear garden setting. 11. I have found that there would be harm to the setting of the listed terrace, although in terms of the Framework this harm would be less than substantial. Appeal Decision APP/F0114/D/20/3265767 3 Conservation Area 12. The expansive BCA has a remarkable degree of visual homogeneity. Its significant attributes include a large proportion of neo-classical buildings arranged in uniform crescents, squares and terraces, and interspersed by a hierarchy of complex and delicate spaces and landscaping. 13. In the context of the appeal site and the other terrace dwellings on this side of St. Mark’s Road, the steeply rising rear gardens combine to provide an attractive and verdant backdrop. Although these gardens have been terraced and incorporate engineered features such as retaining walls and steps, the many garden trees, shrubs and lawned areas soften their appearance and collectively contribute to the significance of the BCA. 14. Given the proposed outbuilding’s scale and elevated siting, it would be seen to rise unduly above the existing boundary enclosures separating the individual gardens. It would therefore appear as an overly dominant and discordant structure, while having a disruptive presence that would unsettle the verdant character and sense of space provided by the rear gardens of properties. 15. There are other garden buildings at the rear of the terrace, a small number of which occupy an elevated position similar to the appeal structure. However, in the main, these are much more reduced in terms of their overall scale, which enables them to be more effectively screened by existing boundary enclosures and vegetation. Furthermore, those buildings appear more discreet, in the context of this rear garden setting, and do not extend across the width of the amenity space to the same extent as the appeal outbuilding. 16. During my site visit, I observed a large outbuilding that straddles the rear of the gardens at No 19 and 20 St Mark’s Road. However, this structure is very much in the minority, and not reflective of the prevailing character of these gardens. 17. Consequently, the proposed outbuilding would be a significant and conspicuous addition to the BCA by reason of its scale and elevated siting and would be out of keeping with the prevailing pattern of development. It would therefore be harmful to the character and appearance of the BCA, neither preserving or enhancing it, although in terms of the Framework this harm would be less than substantial. Findings 18. Where I have found that the proposed outbuilding would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the BCA and the adjacent listed terrace, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, as prescribed by the Framework. In this case the development is not adding to the provision of housing in the area and although it may add some small contribution to the local economy in terms of the development’s build phase, in addition to some ecological benefits, these modest public benefits would not outweigh the significant harm I have identified. 19. For all the reasons above, I conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and would harm the setting of the listed terrace. As such it would conflict with Policies D1, D2, D3 and HE1 of the Bath and North East Somerset Placemaking Plan (adopted July 2017) (the Local Plan) and paragraphs 124, 127, 192 and 193 of the Appeal Decision APP/F0114/D/20/3265767 4 Framework. Amongst other matters, the policies outlined require proposals to contribute positively to local distinctiveness and character, create high quality visually attractive buildings, and sustain and enhance the significance of the historic environment. Living conditions 20. Although the outbuilding would appear prominent and be elevated above nearby dwellings and parts of neighbouring gardens, it would have a modest height of around 2.4m in height and be set in from the nearest boundaries with Nos 16 and 18. It would also maintain an appreciable distance from nearby windows and outdoor seating areas. Accordingly, it would not appear imposing from neighbouring habitable rooms or garden areas, or unacceptably enclose those spaces to the extent that the outlook of neighbours would be harmed. Moreover, even though adjoining gardens and property windows are south facing, the proposal’s scale would not block daylight or sunlight to any significant extent or for any considerable length of time during the day. 21. Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with particular reference to outlook and light. It would accord with Policy D6 of the Local Plan, where it requires proposals to achieve appropriate levels of outlook and natural light. In this respect it would similarly align with the Framework’s requirement for a high standard of amenity for existing users (paragraph 127). Conclusion 22. I have found no harm to residents’ living conditions as a result of the proposal. However, the determining issue in this case is the harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area and the setting of the listed terrace, where I have concluded that the proposal is in conflict with the development plan. 23. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. R E Jones INSPECTOR