To demolish existing wooden garage with corrugated roof and replace with block garage rendered to suit house with corrugated roof, aluminium roller shutter doors and a wooden side door

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 April 2019 by Jillian Rann BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/G0908/D/18/3212273 Marsh House, Skinburness, Wigton, Cumbria CA7 4RA • 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 Sandra Turner against the decision of Allerdale Borough Council. • The application Ref HOU/2018/0092, dated 13 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 8 August 2018. • The development proposed is to demolish existing wooden garage with corrugated roof and replace with block garage rendered to suit house with corrugated roof, aluminium roller shutter doors and a wooden side door. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the setting of the Grade II listed Marsh House. Reasons 3. The proposed development would take place within the garden of Marsh House, a Grade II listed, early 19th century, two storey, three bay house, finished in painted stucco with a pitched slate roof. Marsh House is a striking and attractive building, which features prominently in views along the access track to the front of the site. It is located centrally within the site, and surrounded by landscaped gardens to all sides. Those landscaped grounds provide a pleasant, domestic setting to the house, and contribute to its significance. They also provide a sense of separation between the house and other neighbouring properties, thus distinguishing Marsh House from the other smaller, more closely-spaced houses and cottages further along the access track in both directions. 4. The proposed garage would be located in the rear corner of the site, replacing an existing, smaller garage in a similar position. The proposed garage would have a wide frontage containing two large garage doors, and a very shallow, mono-pitched roof which would be almost flat in its appearance. As a result, it would have an unduly wide, elongated, rectangular form and appearance, which would not reflect the proportions, form or appearance of the main house, or of the further small outbuilding alongside it, both of which have steeper pitched roofs. Rather, it would appear as an unsympathetic and unduly 2 industrial feature, which would be highly discordant within, and cause harm to, the domestic setting of the listed building. That harm would not be offset by the use of matching materials to the walls of the proposed garage. 5. I observed the use of corrugated sheeting to the roof of the existing garage on the site. However, the garage now proposed is of a significantly different scale and form to that existing structure, and the use of such a material as part of the appeal development would, in combination with its width and discordant roof form, further add to its unduly industrial appearance. 6. The garage would be located in the rear part of the site. However, its position is such that, I observed, it would be clearly visible along Marsh House’s drive, and in glimpses through the front boundary vegetation from the access track at the front of the site, which is a public right of way as well as serving other houses. The garage would also be visible from a further public right of way immediately to the rear of the site, which was open, clear and accessible at the time of my visit. The harm arising to the setting of the listed building would thus be evident from public vantage points, as well as within the site itself. 7. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. I find the harm in this case to be less than substantial. Nonetheless, having regard to my duty under section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I must give considerable importance and weight to that harm, and to the presumption that preservation is desirable, and the Framework requires any such harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 8. The existing garage, I observed, is in a relatively poor state of repair at present. However, whilst taller than the garage now proposed, it is narrower, with proportions and a roof form which more closely reflect those of the main house and the other small outbuilding alongside the drive. Whilst its walling materials differ from those older buildings, its timber walls, and its appearance and scale, do not appear discordant within its domestic setting. That existing garage is therefore not comparable to the much larger, wider garage now proposed and, notwithstanding its current state of repair, the removal of that existing structure would not represent a public benefit which would justify or outweigh the harm which would arise from the proposal before me. 9. I have had regard to the personal circumstances and health of the appellant and, in that respect, I have been referred in particular to the benefits of roller shutter doors in terms of their ease of opening compared with other types of doors. I acknowledge those particular circumstances and, in reaching my decision, I have had regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty. However, my concerns regarding the development extend beyond the particular doors proposed, and relate principally to the size and form of the building itself, including its roof. 10. I have also been advised of safety concerns relating to the condition of the existing garage, and of the safety and security benefits of replacing it with a more substantial structure, which would accommodate two vehicles. 11. However, on the basis of the evidence before me, I am not persuaded that the particular appeal proposal would be the only means of meeting those needs 3 and objectives identified. Furthermore, the development proposed would be permanent, and would remain indefinitely regardless of the needs of the initial users of the building. Those benefits cited would also be essentially private in their nature. Therefore, whilst having regard to those matters raised, I afford them little weight as public benefits in favour of the proposal. 12. Similarly, whilst I have been advised that alternative solutions may be more expensive than the current proposal, that is a matter to which I attach little weight as a public benefit in favour of the scheme. 13. I have been referred to other implications which may arise from alternative potential garage designs. However, I have considered the appeal on its own planning merits, and I can give little weight to comparisons to other hypothetical schemes, the details of which are not before me. 14. Given the small scale of the development in relation to its wider surroundings beyond the appeal site, the proposal would not cause harm to the character or appearance of the Solway Coast Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, or to the Hadrian’s Wall World Heritage Site. 15. However, for the reasons given I conclude that the proposed development would cause harm to the setting of the Grade II listed Marsh House, and that the harm arising would not be outweighed by any overriding public benefits. Therefore, the proposal would conflict with Policies S2, S27, S32 and DM15 of the Allerdale Local Plan (Part 1): Strategic and Development Management Policies. Amongst other things, those policies require that the historic environment including heritage assets and their settings will be conserved, and state that applications for buildings within the curtilage of existing properties will be permitted provided that the development achieves a satisfactory visual and architectural relationship with adjoining development. Those policies are consistent with the requirements of the Framework referred to above. Other Matters 16. My attention has been drawn to a number of existing garages elsewhere on the access track which serves the appeal site. However, as I have little detail before me regarding those developments, I cannot be certain that the circumstances in which they were constructed are directly comparable to those in the case before me. I also observed that those existing structures appear to differ in their size and in aspects of their appearance and setting compared with the current proposal. In particular, most are narrower structures, and even those with mono-pitched roofs have steeper roof pitches which more closely reflect those of the buildings to which they relate. Furthermore, I observed that those existing buildings are located, and viewed, in the context of the more closely-spaced development which characterises much of the wider street scene, and which differs from the more spacious setting of the appeal site. In any event, I have considered the appeal proposal on its own planning merits and the existence of those structures referred to does not dissuade me from my conclusions regarding the harm I have identified in this case. 17. I have been referred to the effect of the demolition of the Skinburness Hotel. However I have no information before me regarding the detail or circumstances of that case, and give it little weight in the determination of the proposal before me, which I have considered on its own planning merits. 4 18. I have been referred to earlier discussions between the appellant and the Council during the course of the application. However, I have determined the appeal on its planning merits and on the basis of the submissions before me, and any such previous discussions do not affect my conclusions above. 19. I have taken into account the support expressed by the Town Council, and the absence of objection from any other interested parties. However, that does not dissuade me from my conclusions regarding the harm I have identified in this case. Conclusion 20. For the reasons given, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. Jillian Rann INSPECTOR