Detached two bay garage and storage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 January 2019 by J Bell-Williamson MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 22 January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/L2630/D/18/3213937 3 Hall Cottages, Caistor Lane, Caistor St Edmund NR14 8QT  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 David Spurgeon against the decision of South Norfolk Council.  The application Ref 2018/1467, dated 27 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 8 August 2018.  The development proposed is detached two bay garage and storage. 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 street scene, including on the setting of Hall Cottages which are non- designated heritage assets. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a two storey end-of-terrace cottage located in a rural village setting. 4. Policy DM4.10 of the Council’s Development Management Policies document (DMP) concerns the effect of development on heritage assets. It says that all development proposals must have regard to the historic environment and take account of the contribution which heritage assets make to the significance of an area and its sense of place. This policy is consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which, of direct relevance to the appeal proposal, requires that the effect of an application on the significance of a non- designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application (paragraph 197). 5. Hall Cottages is a short terrace of attractive, historic dwellings that display a high degree of uniformity of character and appearance, and which are largely unaltered. The cottages are set well back from the road frontage with generous front gardens. There is currently no development forward of the front building line of the cottages. The open aspect to the front and side of the cottages is mirrored by the open land opposite and the road junction nearby. As such, this Appeal Decision APP/L2630/D/18/3213937 2 openness is an important element of the setting of the cottages and a characteristic of the immediately surrounding area, which enables uninterrupted views of the historic buildings. 6. The proposed garage would be located to the north of the appeal property, forward of its front building line and close to the road frontage. The building proposed would be of traditional design and appearance, reflecting the appearance and materials of the appeal property and adjoining cottages. It would, however, introduce substantive built development into the open setting of the non-designated heritage assets. This would harmfully reduce the open aspect to the front and side and so would detract from the otherwise open setting. 7. The beech hedge and other planting to the front of No 3 would mitigate the full effects of the building in some views, but its substantive presence in the cottages’ setting would be readily apparent in views from both the road junction and approaching from the south. The necessary height and extent of boundary planting to fully screen views of the building would of itself be an incongruous and uncharacteristic feature in the otherwise open setting. 8. I accept that it may not be possible to locate the garage in the preferred position, level with or behind the cottages’ front building line. This does not, however, overcome the harm that would result from the proposal, as found above. I acknowledge also that a modern detached garage exists at Queen Anne Cottage to the south of the appeal property. However, this property and its garage are set further back from the road than the row of cottages on a staggered building line and are not in such a prominent position close to the road junction and open land opposite. As such, the effects of this existing garage is not directly comparable to those of the appeal proposal. 9. The appellant refers to other specific examples of development on Caistor Lane by way of application references, although no further details are provided to enable a comparison with the appeal proposal. In any case, I was able to assess fully the proposal and the surrounding area from the site inspection and there are no examples of development in a similar position in the immediate street scene and setting of the cottages. 10.I note the reference in the Council’s report to the appeal site being within the settings of three Grade II listed buildings. However, it appears from the report and decision notice that the Council did not find any harmful effects in this regard. 11.In reaching the overall findings in this case I have taken account of the representation in support of the proposal from a neighbouring resident. 12.Therefore, for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the street scene, including on the setting of Hall Cottages which are non-designated heritage assets. Consequently, the proposal is contrary to the following development plan policies: DM4.10 as already described; Policies 1 and 2 of the Joint Core Strategy which respectively include the requirement to conserve the built environment including heritage assets, and to promote design quality; and Policies DM1.4, DM3.6 and DM3.8 (1 and 4) of the DMP, which concern design Appeal Decision APP/L2630/D/18/3213937 3 quality and that development should not harm local character and appearance. These policies are consistent with the Framework. 13.I acknowledge that the proposed garage is intended to improve the property’s appearance and to create additional storage space, and that there were no objections to the proposal. However, these matters do not overcome the harm and conflict with development plan policies that I have found would result from the proposal. Other Matters 14.A number of other procedural matters are raised about the handling of the planning application. I acknowledge that the appellant may be frustrated with the process involved in pursuing this proposal. However, this matter is outside the scope of this appeal, which is only concerned with the planning merits of the proposal. 15.For the reasons given above it is concluded that the appeal should not succeed. J Bell-Williamson INSPECTOR