New detached double garage
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Heritage & Conservation
Trees & Landscape
Policy Weight
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 20 June 2023
by M Clowes BA (Hons) MCD PG CERT (Arch Con) MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 3rd August 2023
Appeal Ref: APP/H1033/D/23/3318541
1 Park Road, Buxton, Derbyshire SK17 6SG
• 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 Kenneth Pritchard against the decision of High Peak Borough
Council.
• The application Ref HPK/2022/0240, dated 21 June 2022, was refused by notice dated
28 December 2022.
• The development proposed is described as ‘new detached double garage.’
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new detached
double garage, at 1 Park Road, Buxton, Derbyshire SK17 6SG in accordance
with the terms of the application, Ref HPK/2022/0240, dated 21 June 2022 and
the plans submitted with it, 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;
Location Plan
Amended Site Plan
Amended Front Elevation
Amended Side Elevation
Amended Floor Plan, Rear and End Elevation
3) No works shall take place above slab level until a detailed schedule of all
facing materials to used in the construction of the development hereby
permitted, has been submitted to and approved in writing, by the local
planning authority. The materials shall match those of the existing dwelling.
Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved materials.
Procedural Matter and Main Issues
2. Although not specified within the Council’s reason for refusal, the officer report
indicated that the proposal may affect the setting of a Grade II* listed building,
St John’s Church. During the course of the appeal, Historic England (HE) were
consulted by the Council as this exercise had not been carried out at the time
of the application. No response was received from HE. In the interests of
Appeal Decision APP/H1033/D/23/3318541
2
thoroughness, I have proceeded to determine the appeal on the evidence
before me, including an assessment as to whether the proposal is considered to
affect the setting of St John’s Church. For this reason, the main issues of this
appeal are whether the proposed development would i) preserve or enhance
the character or appearance of the Buxton Central Conservation Area (CA) and
ii) preserve the setting of the Grade II* St John’s Church.
Reasons
Character or Appearance of the Buxton Central CA
3. The appeal site is located within the Buxton Central CA which encompasses the
historic core of the town. In accordance with the duty imposed by section 72(1)
of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act),
special attention is to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the
character or appearance of the CA.
4. The CA is characterised by well-preserved predominantly Victorian but also
Georgian architecture, arising from the growth of the town due to the
popularity of its thermal waters. It has a high density of architecturally
impressive historic buildings set within generously proportioned streets with a
consistent palette of local gritstone and blue slates or tiles. Trees are a
significant element of the CA providing a verdant and spacious foreground to
the large buildings. It is this architectural quality of the built form and spatial
composition in a sylvan setting, that shapes the historical and aesthetic value
and therefore, the significance of the CA.
5. The appeal site lies within Area 1 of the CA; The Crescent, The Slopes and The
Devonshire Royal Campus. The Buxton Conservation Areas Character Appraisal
2007 (BCACA) indicates that this was a deliberately planned area of richly
detailed detached villas and lodging houses, with symmetrical elevations of
high-quality materials set back from the road in a lush foreground.
6. The contribution of the appeal building is one such large, detached villa set in a
prominent corner plot. Set back from the street on a raised platform, it has a
typically symmetrical front elevation with a large front porch of bespoke joinery
along with arched sash windows, and large overhanging eaves with scalloped
barge boards. I can find no evidence that the BCACA specifically identifies the
host building as making a positive contribution to the character of the CA due
to its siting within a large garden adjacent the Grade II* listed St John’s
Church. Nevertheless, it is clear to me that due to its age and architectural
quality, the appeal building does make an important and positive contribution
to the character and appearance of the CA.
7. Although occupying a large footprint, the proposed garage would be located to
the side of the host dwelling, behind the front elevation. Being deeply recessed
it would respect the original intentions of the planned design of Park Road to
have buildings set back away from the road. As a single storey building at the
same level as the basement, it would clearly read as a subservient and
ancillary structure to the much taller and larger-scale dwelling. The amended
roof design would ensure consistency with the roof form of the host dwelling.
8. There is no evidence before me including within the BCACA, that the setting of
the house and garden was designed to provide a visual separation between the
listed church and the southerly aspect of the rear gardens. The BCACA advises
Appeal Decision APP/H1033/D/23/3318541
3
that houses were laid out with the garden aspect reserved for the south, south-
east or south-west. However, the host dwelling is somewhat of an anomaly
given that its principal elevation faces east towards Manchester Road rather
than Park Road, and there is no real useable rear garden due to the proximity
to the western boundary. Even if it were designed to provide a visual
separation, the proposed development being single storey and deeply recessed
into the site would not significantly erode the visual separation between the
church and the host dwelling. The large front garden and open space
surrounding the site frontage would remain, as would the tall trees within the
churchyard. Moreover, I note the adjacent building on Park Road to the west
has benefitted from a 2-storey rear extension, that whilst not as wide as the
proposed development, nevertheless encroaches southwards towards St John’s.
9. The BCACA identifies significant view and viewpoints for Area 1 of the CA
towards St John’s Church, one of which is from the side of the Old Hall Hotel on
The Square. This view predominantly takes in the Buxton Opera House a
significant landmark building in the town, with the bell tower of St John’s
behind. Any view of the appeal site from this vantage point would be upwards
at a medium distance and occluded by the presence of mature trees on both
the rising land adjacent to the Old Club House and the green verge between
The Square and Water Street. Even in winter when the trees offer less
screening, the development would not be overtly visible. This significant view
would not therefore be unduly harmed.
10. The gap where the garage would be sited is not itself identified as a significant
view within the BCACA. Rather it forms part of a wider significant view towards
the focal point of St John’s Church in south-westerly views from the A53, a
small but no less important distinction. The appeal site cannot be readily seen
in views close to Devonshire Road due to the presence of the stone wall and
mature hedgerow to the boundary of the Devonshire Royal Campus. Closer
views from the junction with Water Street would reveal the proposed garage
but it would clearly be read in connection with the domestic use of the host
building and the extended rear elevation of the neighbouring building behind,
visually and physically distinct from St John’s.
11. The proposal represents an appropriate design and scale of development that
would not harm the significance of the CA as a whole, nor significant views. It
would therefore preserve its character, according with Policy EQ7 of the High
Peak Local Plan (2016) which seeks amongst other things for development
proposals to demonstrate that account has been taken of the distinctive
character and setting of a CA. It would further accord with paragraph 196 of
the Framework which promotes the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the
significance of heritage assets.
Setting of Listed Building
12. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act
1990 places a duty upon me to have special regard to the desirability of
preserving the setting of a listed building, defined by the Framework as the
surroundings in which it is experienced.
13. The significance of the Grade II* listed St John’s Church stems from its 18th
century origins built in a classical style with an inscribed pediment supported
by columns to the eastern elevation. It is constructed of ashlar gritstone with a
tower rising from the western pediment with a cupola above. The BCACA
Appeal Decision APP/H1033/D/23/3318541
4
advises that the church once stood at the edge of the road until it was
realigned, and it now stands at the back of a gravelled forecourt with the
entrance re-sited to face St John’s Road. When in use for car parking, it
presents visual clutter which detracts significantly from the refined proportions
and detailing of the church and its setting in views from the east. In contrast,
the richly planted churchyard creates a soft, verdant frame to St John’s Church,
emphasising its architectural quality which in combination with its position,
identifies the building as an important and prominent landmark within the
street scene. The mature planting therefore contributes to the aesthetic value
and setting of the listed building.
14. The proposed garage would be sited between the appeal property and St John’s
churchyard. Whilst there is some visual connection between the appeal site and
the church, this is limited by the distinctive and lush green canopy formed by
the mature churchyard trees that provide a visual separation of St John’s from
the appeal site. This is emphasised by the physical demarcation between the
two, and by the presence of the recently constructed railings and stone piers.
The limited scale, recessed position and clear association with the host dwelling
would ensure that the proposed garage does not interfere with or result in a
loss of those features identified above, as contributing to the setting of the
listed building.
15. The proposal would preserve the setting of the Grade II* listed building of St
John’s Church. It therefore complies with Policy EQ7 of the LP which requires
proposed developments affecting the setting of a heritage asset, to ensure that
the design is sympathetic and minimises harm to the asset in views away from
and towards the heritage asset. It would also accord with paragraph 196 of the
Framework which promotes the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the
significance of heritage assets in accordance with the requirements of s72(1) of
the Act.
Other Matters
16. The Council considered the conclusions of Officers made in connection with the
refusal of a previous application, to inform its assessment of the appeal
proposal, but they are not before me1. Nevertheless, I note that the previous
application was determined in 2013, prior to the adoption of both the LP and
the 2021 Framework.2 I see no reason based on the evidence before me, why
there should be a presumption against a small scale and simple form of
development within this area of the appeal site. The proposal has been
assessed in accordance with the Act, the provisions of the development plan
and the Framework and with which I have not found harm for the reasons
given above.
17. The appeal site lies within the catchment of the River Wye which forms the
Peak District Dales Special Area of Conservation (SAC). The Council suggests
that planning permission for new development cannot be granted unless it can
rule out likely significant effects on the SAC. However, Natural England’s (NE)
advice in its letter of the 16 March 2023 focusses on wastewater from
overnight accommodation as the main concern. The proposed garage would not
result in a net increase in population served by a wastewater system which
1 Planning application HPK/2013/0502 for a proposed two storey rear extension to provide a double garage with
kitchen & living area above. 5 new roof lights to existing house, reconfiguration of existing access.
2 Site history section of the Council’s officer report.
Appeal Decision APP/H1033/D/23/3318541
5
could result in phosphorus entering the SAC, the main cause for concern
regarding nutrient neutrality within the Peak District Dales. As such, there is no
requirement for a Habitats Regulations Assessment to be carried out.
Conditions
18. I have considered the Council’s suggested conditions in accordance with the
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and paragraph 56 of the National Planning
Policy Framework. Along with the standard time limit, a condition is imposed to
list the plans in the interests of certainty.
19. A pre-commencement condition regarding the submission of a schedule of
materials was suggested by the Council. However, the PPG is unambiguous
that such conditions should only be used where there is a clear justification.
Having sought and taken into account the parties’ comments where received, a
condition is attached requiring the development to be carried out in matching
materials to the existing dwelling, further to the provision of a material
schedule prior to any works above slab level. This will enable works to progress
in a timely manner and ensure preciseness of the materials to be used.
Conclusion
20. For the reasons given above, there are no conflicts with the development plan
when taken as a whole or the approach within the Framework. Accordingly, the
appeal is allowed.
M Clowes
INSPECTOR
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.