Triple garage and link to the existing house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 May 2019 by G Jenkinson BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8th August 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/Z2830/D/19/3223858 Anduin, Church Road, Greatworth, OX17 2DU • 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 Rob Elkington against the decision South Northamptonshire Council. • The application Ref S/2018/2109/FUL, dated 3 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 7 December 2018. • The development proposed is triple garage and link to the existing house. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a triple garage and link to the existing house at Anduin, Church Road, Greatworth, OX17 in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref S/2018/2109/FUL, dated 3 September 2018, and subject to the following conditions: 1. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing 1 and Drawing 2A. 3. No development shall take place above slab level until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the proposed development have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out using the approved materials. Procedural Matters 2. The description of development in the banner heading above has been taken from the decision notice. The application form sets out a different description, which includes a studio over the triple garage and a utility room. However, over the course of the application process the plans were amended and the revised description reflects this. The Council made its decision on this basis and so have I. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this appeal are the effect of the proposal upon the setting of nearby heritage assets. Appeal Decision APP/Z2830/D/19/3223858 2 Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises a detached bungalow accessed via a long driveway from the road. The site is located adjacent to the churchyard associated with St Peters Church, which is Grade II* Listed. The churchyard itself contains a number of listed tombstones. The application site also abuts the Greatworth Conservation Area. Under S66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 the decision maker is required to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses and to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of a conservation area. 5. Greatworth is a small traditional agricultural village, which was recorded in the Domesday Book. Many of the buildings are constructed from limestone and slate and this, together with the local vernacular style of the buildings, gives a strong visual unity to the village. The ability to glimpse views of the countryside from the conservation area provide important reminders of the rural, agricultural heritage of the village. The conservation area covers the historic core of the village and a central feature is St Pater’s Church, parts of which date back to the 13th century, and which is one of the oldest buildings in the village. It is an attractive and well preserved building and its significance lies in part both with its historical value and the contribution it makes as an example of regional ecclesiastical architecture of its period. 6. The proposal consists of a single storey triple garage with an en- suite studio/bedroom and utility connecting the garage to the bungalow. The height of the proposal would be lower the host bungalow and its scale and mass would be such that it would not be an overly dominant feature. Given this, the proposed development would be a sympathetic and subservient addition to the host dwelling. The proposed materials would also be in keeping with the bungalow and the wider area. 7. Furthermore, as the appeal site is considerably lower than the churchyard and is set back some distance from the road, there would be little visibility of it from the churchyard and it would not form a dominant feature in the street scene. I am also satisfied that the views of the open countryside from the churchyard would not be harmed to an unacceptable degree. 8. Similarly, due to the low topography of the appeal site, compared to the surrounding land and the low ridge height of the proposed development the proposal would be barely visible from the nearby public right of way and would therefore result in limited harm to the views towards the church and the conservation area from the open countryside. 9. Overall, I consider that the siting, scale and design of the proposed triple garage and link to the existing dwelling would be sympathetic to the setting of the adjacent Listed Building and Conservation Area, and would have minimal impact upon the views into or out of the churchyard. I find that the proposal would be compatible with the appearance, character, layout, scale and design of the surrounding buildings and so would not result in any harm to the heritage assets, the host property or the wider area 10.Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the adjacent Greatworth Conservation Area and would not cause Appeal Decision APP/Z2830/D/19/3223858 3 harm to the setting of the nearby listed building. Therefore it would not be contrary to saved Policies G3, EV1, EV11 and EV12 of the South Northamptonshire Local Plan (adopted October 1997), Policy BN5 of the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (adopted December 2014), nor to sections 12 or 16 of the Framework, which amongst other things seek to ensure that development proposals seek to preserve and enhance important heritage assets and Conservation Areas. Other Matters 11. I note the concerns of the Parish Council regarding the potential loss of privacy to users of the churchyard but as the revised scheme no longer has any dormer windows I am satisfied there would be no additional overlooking of the churchyard. Conditions 12. I have had regard to the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance when considered the conditions suggested by the Council and amended these accordingly. I have included the standard time limit condition and a condition that requires the development to accord with the approved plans in the interest of clarity and proper planning. 13. The condition relating to materials is necessary to ensure that the development is constructed and finished in materials that are in keeping with those of the host building and are sympathetic to the surrounding character of the area. I have combined the 2 conditions the Council suggested regarding this in order to be more concise. The Council also suggested a condition requiring the removal of the shed within the garden but I do not consider this necessary because this is an outbuilding that cannot be used as living accommodation and it result in no harm upon the landscape or heritage assets in its current form. Conclusions 14.For the above reasons and having considered all the matters raised in evidence and from what I saw during my site visit, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Gemma Jenkinson INSPECTOR