Development proposed is: a garden studio outbuilding as ancillary space to main house and alterations to existing garden

1 Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 July 2018 by Martin H Seddon BSc DipTP MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/A2470/D/18/3202516 4 Chapel Lane, Ketton, Stamford, PE9 3RF  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 Jeremy Clarke against the decision of Rutland County Council.  The application Ref: 2017/1233/FUL, dated 19 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 16 February 2018.  The development proposed is: a garden studio outbuilding as ancillary space to main house and alterations to existing garden. 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 Ketton Conservation Area and the setting of the listed building of No.3 Chapel Lane. Reasons 3. The appeal site is a small garden located on the opposite side of the road from the host dwelling of No.4 Chapel Lane, which is a grade II listed building. It is situated between a garage and Nos.1 and 3 Chapel Lane, which are also grade II listed buildings. The garage has an attached timber canopy. There is a small storage shed of traditional design next to the garden entrance. The rear part of the garden, including a timber shed, is at a higher level and approached via steps. 4. The Ketton Conservation Area is based upon the historic core of the village and associated open spaces. It is characterised by attractive buildings of vernacular style, many of which are listed, built in local oolitic limestone and roofed with Collyweston slates. 5. The proposed outbuilding would be of contemporary design and would be located at the rear of the site, but close to the boundaries. The flat roof would be softened by its proposed green roof planting. Not using a pitched roof and excavating the site would keep the structure relatively low in height. However, it would appear out of character within the strong context of the pitched and gabled roofs in its vicinity. The front elevation of the outbuilding, whilst using locally sourced limestone, would appear prominent in the street scene, box-like and dominated by glazing. Despite the proposed boundary and frontage planting, I consider that it would be appear obtrusive in this sensitive area of special historic and architectural interest. It would fail to preserve or enhance Appeal Decision APP/A2470/D/18/3202516 2 the character and appearance of the Ketton Conservation Area and would harm the setting of the listed building at No.3 Chapel Lane 6. Statutory requirements of Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 require that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of Conservation Areas. Section 66(1) requires that special regard should be had to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that when considering the impact of a proposal on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation and that significance can be harmed or lost through development within their setting. 7. Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use. In view of the scale of the proposal it would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the Ketton Conservation Area and to the setting of the listed building at No.3 Chapel Lane. However, the resultant benefits would primarily be private in nature and the harm to the significance of the heritage assets would not be outweighed by any public benefits from the proposal. 8. The proposal would conflict with policy CS19 of the Rutland Core Strategy and policy SP15 of the Site Allocations and Policies Development Plan Document which seek to promote good design. It would fail to comply with policy CS22 of the Core Strategy and policy SP20 of the Site Allocations and Policies Development Plan Document regarding the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. It would also conflict with the heritage objectives of the Framework. Conclusion 9. I have taken all other matters raised into account, including the lack of objection from neighbours and the appellant’s objective of creating a sunken garden to provide privacy for users. However, for the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed. Martin H Seddon INSPECTOR