Appeal Against Conditions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 March 2019 by G J Fort BA PGDip LLM MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/M9496/D/18/3214930 Newburgh House, Netherside, Bradwell S33 9JL • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land carried out without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. • The appeal is made by Mr David Greenan (Hope Valley Industrial Ltd) against the decision of Peak District National Park Authority. • The application Ref NP/DDD/0718/0629, dated 9 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 6 September 2018. • The application sought planning permission for a development described as “Renovate house and rear garden, remove existing porch and form new smaller open fronted porch. Change of use of highway to garden” without complying with conditions attached to planning permission Ref NP/DDD/0116/0060, dated 20 May 2016. • The conditions in dispute are Nos (2), (3) and (11) which state that: (2) The development hereby approved shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the submitted plans numbered 04, 05-C, 06, 07-C, 08-G, 13- E, 14. (3) The external walls of the replacement detached garage, the replacement porch and the rear orangery extension shall be faced with natural gritstone. (11) No works shall commence in respect of the erection of the replacement porch hereby approved until the land in question has been stopped up. Pursuant to Section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, a stopping up application should be made to the relevant Government Office. • The reasons given for the conditions are: (2) For clarity and for the avoidance of doubt. (3) To ensure the development is in keeping with the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, as required by Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. (11) The proposed development works entail the use of land which currently forms part of the public highway. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the development described as “renovate house and rear garden, remove existing porch and form new smaller open fronted porch. Change of use of highway to garden” at Newburgh House, Netherside, Bradwell S33 9JL in accordance with the application Ref NP/DDD/0718/0629 made on the 9 July 2018 without complying with condition Nos (2) (3) and (11) set out in planning permission Ref NP/DDD/0116/0060 granted on 20 May 2016 by the Peak District National Park Authority, but otherwise subject to the conditions in the schedule to this decision below. Appeal Decision APP/M9496/D/18/3214930 2 Procedural Matter 2. A revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in February 2019, which supplants the version relevant at the date of the Authority’s decision on the application that led to this appeal. However, the February 2019 revisions have made no changes to the aspects of the Framework of most relevance to the current case. Accordingly, I will take the latest version of the Framework into account in my assessment of the appeal and consider that no parties would be prejudiced as a result of me proceeding on this basis. Background and Main Issues 3. Aspects of the development as described above had been constructed otherwise than in accordance with the approved plans, and not in compliance with conditions attached to the original permission prior to the date of the application that led to this appeal. The application seeks to modify two of the disputed conditions so that the permission reflects the development as constructed. I have assessed the appeal on this basis. 4. The porch at the property has not been constructed in line with the approved plans, and the appellant has submitted revised plans to reflect what has been built. Although the revised plans also show the removal of external stairs associated with a neighbouring property I note that this issue is now the subject of a separate planning application1 and the appellant does not now wish this aspect of the site plan to form part of this appeal-accordingly, I will proceed on this basis. The Authority has not raised any other objections to the changes to Newburgh House itself as built and shown on the revised plans. 5. Whilst condition (3) requires the external walls of the garage to be faced in natural gritstone, I saw on site that only one wall- the gable pointing toward Newburgh House itself- is stone faced. The corners of the gable are rendered, as are the other walls of the structure. The appellant disputes the requirements of the condition insofar as it seeks to secure gritstone facing to the garage. However, the Authority’s Officer Report makes reference to other aspects of the garage as constructed that differ from the approved scheme. My observations on site confirmed that this is the case, as aside from the use of render I saw other differences from the approved plans in the finished construction of the garage2. Although the plans condition is disputed by the appellant, I have been supplied with no revised plans that depict the garage as constructed. Accordingly, I will consider only the use of render in the garage’s construction in my assessment of the appeal’s merits, and not the other aspects of the garage as constructed which differ from the approved plans. 6. Consequently, on the basis of all I have seen and read in respect of this case I consider the main issues to be firstly, whether the modification of disputed conditions (2) and (3) would preserve the character or appearance of the Bradwell Conservation Area, including the effects on the Conservation Area’s significance of development within its setting; and secondly, whether condition (11) remains necessary. 1 Authority reference: NP/DDD/0218/0149 2 The garage differs from the approved drawings insofar as, a window and a door has been fitted in one gable; barge boards have been included on both gables; the lower parts of all elevations are faced in courses of a dark brick; sawn quoins and gritstone heads have been omitted; the garage doors as installed do not match the description and drawing on the approv ed plan; and the fitted rainwater goods are plastic as opposed to cast iron. Appeal Decision APP/M9496/D/18/3214930 3 Reasons Character and Appearance 7. Newburgh House is a substantial two-storey building addressing Netherside, a main route through Bradwell. Faced in stone and with a strongly symmetrical façade Newburgh House contributes to the character and appearance of the Bradwell Conservation Area, which derives to a considerable degree from the consistent materials palette of its constituent properties, and the pleasing variety of building styles including terraced properties, higher status detached dwellings, community, ecclesiastical and commercial and other buildings, clustered around principal routes with an underlying topography providing richly layered views. 8. At the front of Newburgh House a porch has been constructed, which although faced in the materials specified on the approved plans and by other conditions attached to the permission is wider than the porch shown on these plans. The porch as constructed also has a roof pitch slightly shallower than that shown on the approved plans. As a result of these aspects, the porch as built does not have proportions as narrow as those of the approved scheme. Nevertheless, it has been constructed in the context of a centrally placed doorway in a tall, wide and strongly symmetrical façade. Consequently, the porch does not not appear unduly squat, and does not dominate or upset the strong balance of the elevation to which it relates. Moreover, the porch has replaced a more dominant and blocky structure previously present at the front of the appeal building and is a marked overall improvement in this respect. I saw several porches and other front projections on properties in the environs of the appeal building, which vary in terms of their design, style and scale, and within this context the installed porch does not look incongruous or discordant. Consequently, taking these matters together, I consider that the porch has preserved the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, and accordingly that the imposition of an amended condition (2) to reflect the scheme as built is fully justified. 9. The Conservation Area boundary is drawn quite tightly to the rear of Newburgh House and the adjacent Hall, which means that the site of the garage is just outside of that boundary, although I readily accept that it is within the setting. Whilst stone-facing is predominant in the area, particularly on traditional buildings, I saw in the wider Conservation Area, and immediately adjacent to it examples of buildings wholly or partially faced in render. The render present on properties in the area is of varying textures including roughcast and pebbledash on traditional buildings- often in quite muted tones, and smoother finishes elsewhere, including on more modern properties also on Netherside. I also saw white and off-white finishes to traditional and modern renders present on buildings in the environs of the garage. 10. Newburgh House itself does not have any render facing, and in these respects I note that the use of render on the garage as built does not meet with the advice given in the Authority’s Detailed Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document Alterations and Extensions (the SPD) which advocates that materials used in such ancillary buildings should match the properties that they serve. Nevertheless, the garage is of a limited scale that is subservient to Newburgh House, and sited considerably behind it. Moreover, the largest expanses of render are employed on its rear gable, which is of limited public visibility, and a Appeal Decision APP/M9496/D/18/3214930 4 flank wall that is substantially screened by close boarded fencing. Furthermore, the gable faced predominantly in gritstone is the one that relates most directly to the host property and Netherside itself. These aspects of the garage, taken together with the presence of varied textures and colours of renders in its immediate and wider surroundings mean that the use of this material has not led to an unduly incongruous appearance- either in the wider context or in terms of its relationship with Newburgh House. 11. For these reasons, I consider that the garage as built does not have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of its surroundings and does not therefore harm the significance of the Conservation Area. Accordingly, the attachment of a modified form of disputed condition (3) is fully justified in this case, as is a departure from the advice given in the SPD. 12. These considerations, taken together with the duty provided by s.72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 lead me to the conclusion on this main issue that that modification of disputed condition (2) would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Moreover, modification of disputed condition (3) would cause no harm to the significance of the Conservation Area. For these reasons, I find no Conflict with Policies LC4, LC5 and LH4 of the Peak District National Park Local Plan (adopted March 2001), or the Framework insofar as, taken together and amongst other matters, they seek to ensure that development conserves the built environment and other valued characteristics of the area; that heritage assets are conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance; and that alterations and extensions do not detract from the character and appearance of their host buildings and wider settings. In arriving at these conclusions, I have had regard to the conservation of cultural heritage of the Peak District National Park alongside the other purposes for which the National Park is designated, in accordance with s.11 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 (as amended). Necessity of Condition (11) 13. The appellant submitted details of a stopping-up order3 made under s. 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). On the basis of this stopping up order having been made, I consider that disputed condition (11) is no longer relevant and that it is not therefore necessary to attach it. Other Matter 14. I have taken into account an objection in this case made on the basis that the application which led to the appeal was retrospective in nature. However, as the relevant sections of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) allow for applications to be made retrospectively this matter does not weigh against the appellant’s case. Conditions 15. Other than the conditions outlined above no others are disputed by the appellant- I will therefore attach all those that I consider to remain relevant. If these have been discharged this is a matter that can be dealt with between the parties. In my assessment, I have had regard to the Framework which sets 3 The Stopping Up Of Highway (East Midlands) (No.36) Order 2016 Appeal Decision APP/M9496/D/18/3214930 5 out4 that conditions should be kept to a minimum and only imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects. Modifications to the wording of the attached conditions have been made in some instances in the interests of clarity. 16. As the development to which this application relates has commenced, the standard implementation condition is no longer necessary. As outlined above, I have amended the plans condition to reflect the porch as built, and to incorporate other uncontentious variations from the previously approved plans which is necessary in the interests of certainty. The appellant does not wish the removal of the external steps on a neighbouring property to form part of this appeal, and the approved ground floor plan includes a different design for the porch to the one that has been constructed. Consequently, I have made it clear in the condition that these aspects of the submitted plans are excluded, in the interests of clarity and precision. 17. In the interests of the finished character and appearance of the development, I have re-attached the conditions relating to the external materials to be used. For the reasons set out above, I have amended condition (3) to include references to the use of render in the garage. 18. As the material development appears substantially complete it is no longer necessary to impose the pre-commencement condition relating to the storage of plant and materials. 19. I have re-imposed the conditions relating to parking and access in order that the development makes appropriate provision in these regards and provides a safe and suitable access to the site. 20. For the reasons set out above, as I have been supplied with a copy of the relevant stopping-up order it is no longer necessary to attach disputed condition (11). Conclusion 21. Modification and removal of the disputed conditions would not conflict with the development plan insofar as the policies that have been drawn to my attention are concerned. Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, and taking fully into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. G J Fort INSPECTOR 4 At paragraph 55 Appeal Decision APP/M9496/D/18/3214930 6 Schedule of Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted relates to the following approved plans: 89115/04-Site Location Plan 89115/05 Revision C-Proposed Ground Floor Plan 89115/06-Proposed First Floor Plan 89115/07 Revision H-Proposed Elevations 89115/08 Revision K-Proposed Site Plan 89115/13 Revision E- Proposed Shared Access Plan 89115/14 Proposed Double Garage except in respect of the “existing external steps removed” annotation shown on plan 89115/08 Revision K-Proposed Site Plan; and the “New Open Porch” shown on plan 89115/05 Revision C. 2) The front gable of the detached garage shall be faced primarily in natural gritstone, and its other walls shall be faced in render. External masonry elements of the replacement porch and the rear orangery extension shall be faced in natural gritstone. 3) The roof of the replacement detached garage and replacement porch shall be clad with blue slate, whilst the glazed roof lantern to the rear orangery extension shall be constructed of glass. 4) The external doors and windows, including those within the rear orangery extension, shall be of timber construction. The replacement ground floor window within the front elevation shall comprise a sliding sash to match the other windows in the front elevation of the dwellinghouse. 5) All new lintels, sills and surrounds shall be reclaimed, weathered natural gritstone matching the existing lintels and sills in terms of stone colour, texture, dressing and projection and detailing. 6) The extension of the existing boundary wall that fronts the western boundary (as shown on plan nos. 89115/08 Revision K-Proposed Site Plan; and 89115/13 Revision E- Proposed Shared Access Plan) shall be of the same design as the existing wall and constructed of natural stone to match the existing wall. 7) The use of the proposed parking area (as shown on plan no. 89115/08 Revision K-Proposed Site Plan) is not to commence until the existing vehicular access is modified in accordance with the approved plan no. 89115/13 Revision E-Proposed Shared Access Plan. 8) The parking spaces shown on 89115/08 Revision K-Proposed Site Plan are to be used solely for the parking of vehicles ancillary to the use of Newburgh House. ***End of Conditions***