Demolition of existing double garage and construction of detached, self-contained granny annexe

www.planningportal.gov.uk/planninginspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 December 2018 by David Fitzsimon MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 7th January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/Z1510/D/18/3212129 15 Sweet Briar, Shalford Road, Rayne, Essex CM77 6BT  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 Mrs Sarah Smith against the decision of Braintree District Council.  The application Ref 18/01175/FUL, dated 18 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 29 August 2018.  The development proposed is the demolition of existing double garage and construction of detached, self-contained granny annexe. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposal on the setting of the host dwelling, which is a Grade II Listed Building, along with its effect on the Rayne Conservation Area. Reasons 3. The appeal relates to a detached timber framed dwelling with low eaves and a thatched roof with two front gable dormers, whose architectural and historic significance is recognised by its Grade II statutory listing. The property sits partly within the Rayne Conservation Area (CA), which is characterised by attractive dwellings, arranged in a well ordered manner. 4. The proposal seeks to replace an existing large garage, which sits at the back of and to the side of the existing dwelling, with a detached annexe building. The garage is a utilitarian rather than an attractive structure. Given its large scale and position very close to the host dwelling, the garage impacts negatively on the setting of the listed building. 5. The annexe building would be finished in appropriate external materials. It would be of a more attractive design than the existing garage and for this reason, I accept there would be some visual improvement when viewed front on from Shalford Road. However, the proposed building would broadly repeat the uncomfortable relationship with the host dwelling. Its eaves and ridge would be Appeal Decision APP/Z1510/D/18/3212129 2 the same height as those of the existing garage and it would have a materially larger footprint, being about two thirds of the footprint of the dwelling itself. 6. As a consequence, the proposed annexe would increase the physical presence of built form and it would compete with, rather than be submissive to, the main dwelling. I consider that although the annex building is of a more attractive design than the existing garage, on balance, its effect on the setting of the listed building would be marginally worse because of its greater size. I also consider that this more harmful relationship would fail to preserve or enhance the overall character and appearance of the CA, even accounting for the fact that part of the annex would sit outside of the defined boundary. 7. The harm would be ‘less than substantial’ as directed by the Planning Practice Guidance but I place considerable importance and weight on the statutory duties imposed by sections 66 and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which require special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest that they possess, and to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area respectively. 8. The National Planning Policy Framework directs that when considering the impact of a proposed development 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. It goes on to say that 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, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. 9. The build itself would generate some economic benefit, although this would be limited. The annexe would enable the appellant to care for her elderly mother at home, whilst providing a degree of independence. This is clearly a positive factor and could result in less demand for Local Authority assisted social care. However, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I consider it likely that such supported accommodation could be provided without having such a damaging effect on the setting of the listed building. I therefore attach only limited weight to these factors. 10. The appellant refers to other annexes and residential developments which have been permitted within the local area and beyond. However, I do not know the precise planning circumstances behind the examples highlighted. In any event, I have considered the proposal before me on its merits, taking into account the specific context and setting of the appeal property. 11. Finally, I am aware that the appellant is not satisfied with the manner in which the application was determined by the Council, but this is not a matter for me to consider. 12. I therefore conclude that the proposal would harm the setting of the host dwelling, a Grade II listed building, and it would fail to preserve the character or appearance of the CA. In such terms, it conflicts with the Framework, along with policy CS9 of the adopted Braintree District Core Strategy and saved Appeal Decision APP/Z1510/D/18/3212129 3 policies RLP17, RLP90, RLP95 and RLP100 of the adopted Braintree District Local Plan Review. 13. The arguments advanced by the appellant in favour of the scheme do not outweigh this harm and policy conflict therefore the appeal does not succeed. David Fitzsimon INSPECTOR