Two storey extension over existing garage (making 3 storeys in total) connecting to rear of existing house

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 9 March 2021 by I A Dyer BSc (Eng) FCIHT an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 March 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/L2630/D/21/3266592 31 Church Road, Wacton NR15 2UG • 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 Mark Bailey against the decision of South Norfolk District Council. • The application Ref 2020/1675, dated 7 September 2020, was refused by notice dated 22 December 2020. • The development proposed is two storey extension over existing garage (making 3 storeys in total) connecting to rear of existing house. 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 site and surrounding area, with particular reference to the Wacton Conservation Area (the CA). Reasons 3. The appeal site lies within the CA and fronts onto Church Road, a predominantly residential street within the village of Wacton. Dwellings in the vicinity are generally set back behind front gardens bordered by hedges incorporating mature trees. They are of traditional design with relatively simple gabled and hipped roof forms. To the north of 31 Church Road is open land, separated from the appeal site by a tree-lined accessway. 4. No 31 lies alongside a dwelling of similar scale and design, and the two dwellings, although of more recent design, incorporate features reflective of the nearby buildings. To the rear of the main dwelling lies a single storey double garage. 5. The significance of the CA, in so far as it relates to this appeal, derives from its evidential, historic and aesthetic value found in the authenticity of its rural vernacular architecture and setting. Notwithstanding the presence of more recently constructed buildings, the character and appearance of the CA in this vicinity is of a spacious, verdant, rural village street, providing a setting for buildings of predominantly traditional design set back behind planting and these make a positive contribution to the area. 6. The proposal would add a substantial 2½ storey extension to the rear of the dwelling, extending over, and to the rear of, the existing garage and linking to the main dwelling at first floor level. Appeal Decision APP/L2630/D/21/3266592 2 7. The proposal would incorporate materials and design features reflective of those of the main dwelling. Nevertheless the ridge height would be taller than the main dwelling, and overall the extension would give an appearance of bulk and massing that would be dominant over the host dwelling. The roof form, with its combination of ridge heights and flat, hipped and gabled roof areas, would be over-complicated compared with the more basic, traditional roof forms of the host and nearby buildings. This incongruity of design, together with the lack of subservience of the extension and its dominance over the main dwelling would result in an incongruous feature, at odds with the scale of nearby buildings and roof forms. Furthermore the massing of the resultant building would undermine the feeling of spaciousness in the vicinity, which I have identified above as being a positive feature of this part of the CA. 8. Notwithstanding the partial screening of the extension by existing planting and built form in the area, this incongruity would be visible to passers-by from Church Road, particularly across the open land to the north of the site, and would, in this case, amount to significant harm to the character and appearance of the CA 9. To the north lies a group of buildings straddling the road. These are a mix of Listed Buildings and unlisted buildings of townscape significance. Despite the proximity of the proposal to the group, the degree of screening provided by the existing planting and separation would severely limit views that would encompass both the proposal and these buildings. Other Listed Buildings within the CA are further away and well screened from the proposal and so views including the proposal and those buildings would be even more limited. Thus the proposal would not result in material harm to the setting of these buildings and I note that the Council did not identify any harm to the setting of any buildings in the Officer’s Report. 10. I therefore find that the development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the Wacton Conservation Area. The proposal would not, therefore, comply with the expectations of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. It would be contrary to Policies 1 and 2 of the Greater Norwich Development Partnership Joint Core Strategy for Broadland, Norwich and South Norfolk -2011, as amended 2014- and Policies DM1.4, DM3.4, DM3.6, DM3.8 and DM4.10 of the South Norfolk Local Plan Development Management Policies Document -2015. 11. These policies jointly, amongst other things, require new development, including extensions, to be designed to the highest possible standards, to create a strong sense of place, and to respect local distinctiveness, including the landscape character and historic environment. 12. Whilst predating the current National Planning Policy Framework -2019- (the Framework), these policies are in close conformity with the aims of Sections 12, 15 and 16, with which the proposal would also be in conflict, and therefore carry significant weight. 13. The statutory duty in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 is a matter of considerable importance and weight. As a consequence of its design the appeal scheme would have a harmful impact on the CA insofar as it would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the CA. The proposal would not lead to the loss of any buildings that make a positive contribution to the character or appearance Appeal Decision APP/L2630/D/21/3266592 3 of the CA. As such, whilst material, I find that the harm would be less than substantial. Paragraph 196 of the Framework directs that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 14. The appellant argues that the development would support his educational work as a martial arts instructor, providing fitness training within the community. However, I have little substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the activities of the business that would be carried out using the development could not be provided in some other way to provide the same public benefits to the local economy in terms of long term support of a local business and opportunities for local residents to improve their health and wellbeing. There would also be minor benefits in terms of short term employment in the construction industry. However, benefits would be limited by the scale of the development. 15. The benefits of the proposal would be of limited weight overall. The proposal would result in a significant level of harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset. However, the harm must be considered in the context of the special attention I must pay to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. I afford considerable importance and weight to this statutory duty. This does not amount to a direction to refuse proposals that harm, and thus fail to preserve, designated heritage assets, but it provides a strong presumption in favour of preservation. 16. I note that the appellant has amended the design of the proposal, seeking to accord with advice provided by the Council. However, such cooperation is not a guarantee of acceptability of the scheme. 17. Thus, I find that the material harm that would arise from the proposal would not be outweighed by its public benefits. Accordingly, there would be a conflict with Paragraph 194 of the Framework as harm to designated heritage assets would not have clear and convincing justification and the Framework states that great weight should be given to a designated heritage asset’s conservation. Conclusion 18. The proposed development would be contrary to the development plan and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal fails. I Dyer INSPECTOR