Detached double garage (part retrospective)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 August 2026 by Sarah Colebourne MA, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:08 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011000 27A St Peters Road, Huntingdon, PE29 7AA • 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 Dawn MacDonald against the decision of Huntingdonshire District Council. • The application Ref is 25/02103/HHFUL. • The development proposed is a detached double garage (part retrospective). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary matter 2. Since the application was determined, a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in August 2026. However, as any policies that are material to this decision have not fundamentally changed, I am satisfied that this has not prejudiced any party. I have had regard to the latest version of the Framework in reaching my decision. Main Issue 3. The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Huntingdon Conservation Area (CA) and the setting of the nearby grade II listed building at 27 St Peters Road, including its effect on nearby trees. Reasons Siting, size and materials 4. The Framework states that when considering the impact of new development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, substantial weight should be given to its conservation and that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), will be a matter of considerable importance and weight and should be weighed against any public benefits resulting from the proposal. I have also had special regard to sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) as amended. 5. The appeal site was formerly part of the listed building at 27 St Peters Road (Braywood House) which has historic significance and group value with the listed buildings at no 28 and 29 as part of a historic C19th prison complex and architectural significance as a Georgian building. It lies within the large Huntingdon Appeal Decision 6011000 2 Conservation Area whose significance derives from its development as a medieval settlement surrounded by extensive common land, with some later C19th development and the historic parklands around the C16th Hinchbrook House. 6. The dwelling at the appeal site was originally built as a double garage for no 27 under a planning permission granted in 1986 which was later converted into a guest house under a planning permission granted in 2017. As the building was constructed after the listing in 1977, the Council considers that it was not a curtilage listed building and that the change of use, ownership and the creation of a separate garden area at 27a has changed the extent of the curtilage of the neighbouring listed building. I agree with the Council that although the site falls within the former gardens of the listed building, the new laurel hedge planted between the two properties has redrawn a new line of enclosure. The two buildings are also now in separate ownership and use and I agree that the front garden at the appeal site no longer forms part of the curtilage of the listed building. At my site visit, however, I saw that there is some intervisibility between the appeal site and the listed building despite the presence of the laurel hedge and on that basis I agree with the Council that it does still form part of its setting, ie. the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. 7. The proposed garage has already been partially constructed and sits in the front garden of the property behind a mature front and side boundary of tall trees that contribute strongly to the character and appearance of the CA. It is accessed from South Side, a narrow unmade track that also provides access to several dwellings. The front garden forms part of a stretch of undeveloped garden land that lies to the front of the listed buildings between South Side and North Side and reflects the historic layout of the former prison, contributing to the historic value and significance of the CA. 8. Although not clearly seen from St Peters Road due to the mature planting along the frontages, it also contributes to the open, verdant character of the CA (character is not dependent upon visibility from public viewpoints). This is significant given the otherwise built up character of St Peters Road which, when travelling from the town centre, passes by Victorian residential development before reaching the appeal site and the CA and then onwards through a large industrial estate. 9. The proposed garage, together with the proposed gravel drive and parking area, would occupy a large and central part of the existing grassed area. The loss of that garden area by reason of the siting of the proposed building there would result in harm to the character and significance of the CA and to the setting of the listed building. 10. Moreover, at my visit I noted that, contrary to the appellant’s claims, the garage would be seen in the approach towards St Peters Road from South Side and would be glimpsed from St Peters Road through gaps in the planting. Its size and scale would appear incongruous with that of this small dwelling and it would not appear sufficiently subordinate to that. This would result in further harm to the character and appearance of the CA. 11. The Council’s objections also concern the proposed materials of shiplap timber boarding, grey felt roof tiles and upvc guttering. Whilst those might be appropriate in some circumstances for a rear garden setting in a non-heritage location, they would not reflect the high quality brick and slate materials that predominate in this Appeal Decision 6011000 3 heritage setting and this adds to my concerns. A condition for further details of materials would not be appropriate given my objections in terms of siting, size and scale. Trees 12. The Council’s decision also refers to the lack of sufficient arboricultural information in regards to nearby trees. Its Arboricultural Officer has commented that there are trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders on the site and that and an English Oak is due to be planted on the edge of the grassed area during this planting season following the removal of a large mature Ash tree. 13. At my visit, I saw that a very tall Eucalyptus tree on the site frontage in particular makes an important contribution in the street scene and to the setting of the listed building. Together with the other trees, it also strongly contributes to the mature planting along the frontage and to the character and appearance of the CA. 14. The submitted plans show basic tree information but do not correctly show the size, species or Root Protection Areas (RPAs) of all of the mature trees and boundary vegetation and no tree assessment in accordance with BS5837 has been submitted as required by the Council’s development plan policy, LP31 in ‘Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036’ (2019) (LP). 15. I noted that the Eucalyptus tree overhangs most of the timber frame of the proposed garage which is also sited under the canopies of a number of large mature Leyland cypresses. It is clear then that the trees have significantly larger RPAs than indicated and that the submitted information is not only lacking in detail but is inaccurate. 16. From what I have seen, I would agree with the Arboricultural Officer that it is likely that the proposal has already encroached into the RPAs and caused some ground compaction or root damage, particularly to the rear of the structure although the extent of any resulting harm has not been assessed as part of the submitted information. Neither has any Tree or Root Protection Plan, Arboricultural Method Statement or Construction Method Statement been provided to demonstrate how the retained trees would be safeguarded during further construction works. 17. Although the appellant has stated that the groundworks for the garage were completed in June 2025 and used a low impact method of construction with no observable decline in the health or vitality of any of the surrounding trees or hedges, my observations at my site visit indicated otherwise and I noted a number of dead or decaying branches. No roof has yet been constructed and given the low hanging canopies of the some of the Leyland cypresses in particular this is likely to result in pressure to prune or fell trees either during construction or at a later point for maintenance purposes. A condition for an arboricultural report attached to a permission would not necessarily provide the certainty that any damage could be mitigated sufficiently and would not overcome these concerns. 18. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on those trees and any loss of a tree in the group would erode the contribution that they make as a group to the CA. Appeal Decision 6011000 4 Appellant’s suggested benefits 19. Whilst the harm in this case, by reason of the siting, size and materials of the building and the effect on trees, would be less than substantial, it still carries considerable weight and the Framework also requires that any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 20. The appellant has suggested that the proposal would allow the consolidation of storage into a single, purpose built structure, enabling the removal of temporary or ad hoc structures within the garden although I have no further details of exactly which structures those would be. I noted at my visit various structures within the plot and cars parked within the front garden as well as on the existing parking area. A large detached, timber shed to the side of the dwelling is shown on the plans but not indicated for removal. A small summer house and what appeared to be a mesh structure for animal housing are not shown on the plans. Whilst there would be some benefit in the removal of those structures, it would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm that would result from the proposed garage which is a much larger building. This matter does not, therefore, amount to public benefits sufficient to outweigh the harm that would be caused here as required by the Framework. 21. I conclude then that, by reason of its siting, size and materials and the effect on nearby trees, the proposal would cause significant harm to the setting of the listed building at no 27 and would fail to preserve or enhance the significance of the CA. It would be contrary, therefore, to development plan policies LP11, LP12, LP 31 and LP34 in the LP which together seek to ensure that proposals respond to their context, including both the natural and historic environment, preserve or enhance Conservation Areas, and avoid, minimise or mitigate adverse harm to trees. It would also fail to meet the requirements of the Framework which has similar objectives in addition to the setting of listed buildings objective referred to earlier. Conclusion 22. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would be contrary to both the Framework and the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that. The appeal should be dismissed. Sarah Colebourne INSPECTOR