For the erection of a timber frame carport/garage and the conversion of the existing detached outbuilding to form a residential annexe
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Heritage & Conservation
Conversion/Use
Policy Weight
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 8 December 2024
by A Hartley LLB (Hons) Solicitor MBA
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 23 January 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/E2530/D/24/3351960
10 High Road, Manthorpe, Lincolnshire NG31 8NF
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Mr David McMullan against the decision of South Kesteven District Council.
• The application Ref is S23/2315.
• The development proposed is for the erection of a timber frame carport/garage and the conversion of
the existing detached outbuilding to form a residential annexe.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a
timber frame carport/garage and the conversion of the existing detached
outbuilding to form a residential annexe at 10 High Road, Manthorpe, Lincolnshire
NG31 8NF in accordance with the terms of the application reference S23/2315
subject to the following conditions:
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the
date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans:
Drawing Numbers 1343.6, 1343.6A, 1343.1, 1343.4, 1343.5, 1343.5A
3) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than
for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as 10 High
Road, Manthorpe, Lincolnshire NG31 8NF.
Application for Costs
2. An application for costs was made by Mr David McMullan against South Kesteven
District Council and this will be the subject of a separate Decision.
Preliminary Matters
3. The proposal is within the setting of a listed building1 (the appeal property). Section
66 of the Act applies. Accordingly, I have had special regard to the desirability of
preserving the building or its setting or any features of architectural or historic
interest which it possesses.
1 1235941
Appeal Decision APP/E2530/D/24/3351960
2
4. The proposal is within the Manthorpe Conservation Area (MCA). Section 72 of the
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) applies.
Accordingly, I have had special regard to preserving or enhancing the character or
appearance of the MCA.
5. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been updated since
the appeal representations were made. However, as the revisions do not affect the
matters under consideration in this appeal, (other than paragraph references) it was
not considered necessary to seek further comment.
Main Issues
6. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on (i) the setting of the listed building
and (ii) the character or appearance of the MCA.
Reasons
Designated Heritage Asset - Setting of Listed Building
7. The appeal property is seen within a group of similar semi-detached former estate
cottages, now houses, set back from the road frontage with small front gardens and
low front boundary enclosures. The appeal property is in an elevated position from
the road. It has been extended to the side and is at the end of the group. It has a
driveway at the side to a garden at the rear. The plot is approximately 75 metres in
depth. Within the rear garden is a paved patio area, and two single storey
outbuildings, one is a small garden shed, the other a more substantial size currently
used an office and garage. An area of open garden then extends to the rear of the
two outbuildings.
8. The appeal property is one half of a pair of semi-detached former estate cottages,
of Mid. 19th century with 20th century additions. They are of brick with pantile roof
and retain some historic architectural detailing. Their historic significance comes
from their connection to the Belton Estate, in that they were provided by the
Brownlow family as estate worker cottages.
9. The appeal proposal would introduce a garage at the end of the open rear garden.
Although within its setting, it would be some distance from the listed building and
would not be seen within the vista of the listed building when viewed from the public
road.
10. The physical alterations to the office and garage building are limited and comprise
the removal of the garage door on the east elevation to be infilled with facing
brickwork to match the existing and bifold doors to be installed in the west
elevation.
11. Having regard to the above, I find that the proposed development would have a
neutral effect on the setting of the listed building.
12. Consequently, the setting of the listed building would be preserved, and the
proposal therefore complies with policy EN6 of the South Kesteven District Council
Local Plan (2020) (LP) in so far as relevant.
Designated Heritage Asset – Conservation Area
13. The MCA covers an area encompassing almost the whole of the village of
Manthorpe. Its significance in so far as relevant to this appeal, is its historic
Appeal Decision APP/E2530/D/24/3351960
3
association with the nearby Belton House, with many of the properties retaining a
19th Century estate character. Buildings are predominantly of red brick construction,
under pantiled roofs, with some use of stone. The group of cottages on High Road
are notable for their elaborate decorative chimneys.
14. Given the above I find that the significance of the MCA, in so far as it relates to this
appeal, to be primarily associated with the architectural and historic interest of its
buildings and this directly contributes to its special interest for the reasons given.
15. The appeal property is visible from the public highway and thus contributes
positively to the significance of the character or appearance of the MCA through its
architectural detail and historic connection to the Belton Estate.
16. The proposed changes to the office and garage outbuilding would be limited and
the proposed new garage would not readily visible from the public road or harm the
significance of the listed building through development within its setting. As such
the proposed built development would have a neutral impact on the significance of
the MCA.
17. Consequently, the character or appearance of the MCA would be preserved, and
the proposal would comply with policy EN6 of the LP, in so far as relevant.
Granny Annexe
18. As part of the appeal proposal, the garage/office outbuilding as altered would
include all the facilities for day to day living and be self-contained. It would share a
driveway and garden and would be close to the main dwelling. It is proposed to be
occupied by the mother of the occupant of the main dwelling to serve as an
annexe.
19. The Council is concerned that if the outbuilding were used as a separate dwelling,
this could adversely affect the character of the area by subdividing the existing plot.
The plot currently forms part of the setting of the listed building and contributes to
the significance of the MCA by reason of its historic association as a 19th century
estate cottage with a generous depth of rear garden. These features are common
within the group of estate cottages on High Road. I find that its sub-division would
not preserve the setting of the listed building or the character of appearance of the
MCA. However, the appeal proposal is for an annexe and provided that a condition
is attached to restrict the use for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the
main dwelling, any future sub-division or use as a separate dwelling would require
planning permission.
Planning Balance
20. Overall, I find that the appeal proposal preserves the setting of the listed building
and the character or appearance of the MCA. The evidence before me suggests
that the garage/ office outbuilding element of the appeal proposal is intended to be
used as an annexe for the mother of the occupant of the main dwelling. The
Council’s concern that as the annexe would contain all the facilities for day to day
living there is potential for the creation of a separate dwelling in the future is not
substantiated in the evidence. It is not the proposal before me. However, as
subdivision of the appeal site to create a separate, independent dwelling would not
preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the MCA or preserve the
setting of the listed building, I find it would be necessary to make the proposal
Appeal Decision APP/E2530/D/24/3351960
4
acceptable to attach a condition restricting the use of the development for purposes
ancillary to the use of the main dwelling.
Conditions
21. I have had regard to the conditions proposed by the Council. I have imposed a
condition specifying the approved plans as this provides certainty; a condition
restricting the occupation of the annexe to residential use ancillary to the appeal
dwelling as this provides certainty, preserves the setting of the listed building and
the character or appearance of the MCA. I have not imposed a matching materials
condition as the details are shown on the approved plans.
Conclusion
22. For the above reasons, having regard to all representations made, I conclude that
the proposal complies with the development plan as a whole and with the
provisions of the Framework. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.
INSPECTOR
A Hartley
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decision
Site visit made on 8 December 2024
by A Hartley LLB (Hons) Solicitor MBA
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 23 January 2025
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/E2530/D/24/3351960
10 High Road, Manthorpe, Lincolnshire NG31 8NF
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Mr David McMullan for a full award of costs against South Kesteven
District Council.
• The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a timber frame
carport/garage and the conversion of the existing detached outbuilding to form a residential annexe .
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is allowed in the terms set out below.
Reasons
2. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that costs may be awarded against a
party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for
costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.
3. The PPG provides some examples of unreasonable behaviour on the part of the
Council relating to the substance of a matter under appeal. The following are
relevant to this case:
• Preventing or delaying development which should clearly be permitted.
• Refusing planning permission on a planning ground capable of being dealt
with by imposing a condition.
4. In this case the Council had no objection to the timber frame carport/garage or the
alterations to the existing detached outbuilding. However, it treated the proposal as
if it were for a separate dwelling, in the absence of any evidence to substantiate
this as a prospect. It also failed to consider the imposition of a condition to restrict
the use as ancillary to the residential use of the main dwelling. I find that this
amounts to unreasonable behaviour.
5. It is well established in planning law that an annexe of the type in the appeal
proposal can be conditioned to restrict its use to being ancillary to the residential
use of the main dwelling. The evidence submitted with the appeal clearly set out
the proposed ancillary nature of the use as a granny annexe, notwithstanding the
fact that the annexe would include all the facilities for day to day living.
Costs Decision APP/E2530/D/24/3351960
2
6. The failure on the part of the Council necessitated the appeal and thus caused
delay to the development in circumstances where it should clearly be permitted.
The Council also failed to respond to the appellant’s costs application.
7. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted
expense, as described in the Planning Practice Guidance has been demonstrated
and that a full award of costs is justified.
Costs Order
8. In exercise of the powers under section 250(5) of the Local Government Act 1972
and Schedule 6 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended, and all
other enabling powers in that behalf, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that South
Kesteven District Council shall pay to Mr David McMullan, the costs of the appeal
proceedings described in the heading of this decision; such costs to be assessed in
the Senior Courts Costs Office if not agreed.
9. The applicant is now invited to submit to South Kesteven District Council, to whom
a copy of this decision has been sent, details of those costs with a view to reaching
agreement as to the amount.
INSPECTOR
A Hartley
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.