Single storey side extension to extend kitchen and provide gym

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 September 2018 by G Powys Jones MSc FRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 16th October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/B1605/D/18/3206206 The Coach House, 2 Eldorado Road, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, GL52 2HQ  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 Basckin against the decision of Cheltenham Borough Council.  The application Ref 18/00072/FUL, dated 11 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 2 May 2018.  The development proposed is a single storey side extension to extend kitchen and provide gym. _________________________________________________________________________ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary and procedural matters 2. The appeal property is situated within the Cheltenham Central Conservation Area (CA). It also stands next to a listed building (Grade II) known as Normanhurst, and the applicant has produced a description of the building. The brick wall separating the appeal property and Normanhurst is listed by reason of it forming part of the latter’s curtilage. 3. The appeal property is a former coach house that once served Normanhurst. It was separated some time ago and became an independent dwelling. It did not form part of Normanhurst’s curtilage when the latter was listed, but the wall separating the pair is. 4. This wall is relatively modern, having been built pursuant to a planning permission granted in 2009. It has not been built to the full height allowed by the permission. Primarily for this reason the Council says that it has not been built in accordance with the approved plans. 5. The appellant, on the other hand, says: The wall has already been constructed to a height of approximately 2 metres and is due to be completed to its full height of 3 metres when the outcome of the Coach House side extension is finally determined. The freehold owner of Normanhurst confirmed he would be extending the height of the listed boundary wall to 3 metres when the “Coach House” was sold to the current owner, the applicant. The agreement to increase the height of the wall is legally binding as it is written into the transfer contract as a charge on the property. Appeal Decision APP/B1605/D/18/3206206 2 The owner of Normanhurst has also notified the Planning Authority that the wall will be increased to the approved 3 metre height in the future. 6. However, Normanhurst’s owner’s representations to the Council on the original application provide no clear indication either as to an intent or requirement on his part to increase the height of the wall. 7. It is not for me to determine whether or not an enforceable agreement exists which would result in the height of the wall being increased, and nor does the ‘proposed’ increase in height fall within the terms of the proposal before me. 8. In the light of the considerable uncertainty arising from the available evidence, I shall assess the proposal on the basis of the height of the wall, as existing. Main issues 9. These are whether the proposed development would serve to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA, and the effect of the proposed development on the setting of Normanhurst. Reasons 10. Consideration was given to various roof designs for the proposed extension, but a flat roof was finally adopted. As a result, I share the appellant’s view that the development would be barely noticeable from the public realm in the light of the screening provided by surrounding walls, fences and vegetation. Thus the effect on the CA would be minimal and certainly not harmful. 11. Although the coach house was separated from Normanhurst some time ago, it forms part of its pleasant setting. The proposed development would stand alongside the listed building. Whilst I understand the reasoning behind the adoption of a flat roof, I find the resultant design to be crude and utilitarian, both in respect of its effect on the host property and setting of the listed building. The extension would stand proud of the boundary wall at its current height and would appear incongruous when viewed from within Normanhurst and its remaining curtilage, damaging the listed building’s setting. 12. I conclude that at worst, despite its poor design, the development would have a neutral effect on the CA as a whole, whose character and appearance would thus be preserved. However, I also conclude that the development would materially and adversely affect the setting of the adjacent listed building. This is sufficient reason to dismiss the appeal in view of the ensuing harm and since a clear conflict arises with those provisions of policy SD8 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031 directed to protecting the setting of designated heritage assets. Other matters 13. Reference has been made to other development plan policies, but that referred to above is considered the most relevant. I also note the references to the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, which has recently been replaced by the 2018 edition. Nothing in the replacement Framework suggests to me that the Government’s commitment to protecting the setting of heritage assets from harm is in any way diminished. Appeal Decision APP/B1605/D/18/3206206 3 14. All other matters raised in the representations have been considered and taken into account but no other matter raised is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations that led me to my conclusions. G Powys Jones INSPECTOR