Garage with room above at Holly House, 5 East Lane, Edwinstowe

What was proposed

Retrospective permission was sought to retain a two-storey garage as built, with mixed brick and black timber cladding, pantile roofing and a proposed sliding timber door.

“The external materials of the garage building consist of muti colour bricks with vertical timber cladding/boarding in black, the roofing material is pantile as showed on the street view photo above.”

“The garage door is yet to be installed. A genuine timber door is proposed, which would be sliding on a rail to be routed in the garage along the side wall without opening onto the highway.”

Officer report

The site and its character

The property is a period building contributing positively to Edwinstowe Conservation Area, forming part of a terrace of nineteenth-century cottages.

“The site lies within the principal village of Edwinstowe, adjacent to the south of the district centre as defined by the Newark and Sherwood Allocations and Development Management DPD (adopted March 2019).”

“No. 5 East Lane is identified in the Conservation Appraisal as a period property that makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area (CA). The building appears to form part of a terrace of 19th century cottages, and incorporates a 2 storey bookend which sits perpendicular to the road (this being no 5).”

Officer report

Earlier permissions and works

Permission for extensions, alterations and a new garage was granted in 2021, but the garage differed from the approved drawings and its conditions were not discharged.

“The property obtained planning permission for front and side extensions with alterations to the dwelling and a new garage in 2021. The extensions and the alterations to the dwelling have been carried out. The garage is in the process of being completed; however, the conditions and details for the original approved development were never discharged.”

“21/00238/FUL - Demolition of existing porch, existing garage and lean-to outhouse, construction of new front and side extension, and new garage. Approved on 06.12.2021.”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the garage overly prominent, incongruous and insufficiently subservient, causing less than substantial harm to the conservation area without public benefits to outweigh it.

“While it is acknowledged that timber weatherboarding can be seen within agricultural type buildings, and is used within the residential development west of High Street, over the road at Tattersall Close, which is located outside the conservation area, the mix of materials used on this garage building is not typical on this section of East Lane which is within Edwinstowe Conservation Area.”

“The proposed site is readily visible from a vantage point, adjacent to East Lane, with scale and mass similar to the adjacent dwelling known as no.1 East Lane. The garage building, when viewed alongside the existing structure, is not subservient to the host dwelling, the development as built, is considered to cause less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the Edwinstowe Conservation Area, to which there is no public benefit, which is contrary to s16…”

Officer report

Consultation and local views

The parish council had no material objection, conservation officers identified heritage harm, and four residents supported the garage as an improvement.

“Overall, the scale of the garage building is considered to be harmful to the setting of 1 East Lane as a non-designated heritage asset, as well as to the street scene of the CA. The development, as built, is considered to cause less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the Edwinstowe Conservation Area.”

“Four letters of representations have been received from local residents, support the application with the following grounds: • The constructed garage in question is a vast improvement, both structurally and visually to what it was previously. • The garage is a fine addition to Edwinstowe and hopefully a positive guide for future building within the village environment.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke in support of the application, and members received a presentation with photographs and plans.

What members debated

Members debated whether the garage was overbearing and whether changes to its roofline, brickwork, windows and other materials could make it acceptable.

“Members considered the application, and it was commented that the works already undertaken were over-bearing in a conservation area and should not be allowed. Other Members commented that whilst the roof line was too high, certain other changes including the brick work, which could be changed or rendered, windows including the window on the gable could be made. Negotiations between the applicant and Officers could make the building more palatable. It was further…”

Minutes

How the committee voted

The vote to refuse was lost by two votes to ten, followed by a recorded vote on the contrary approval motion.

“A vote was taken for refusal and lost with 2 votes For and 10 votes Against.”

“AGREED Moved Councillor A Freeman and Seconded Councillor K Melton (with 10 votes For and 2 votes Against) that contrary to Officer recommendation Planning Permission be approved, subject to conditions including securing appropriate changes to the materials and brickwork including the black timberwork and amending the window on the gable, to be delegated to the Business Manager – Planning Development, in consultation with the Planning Committee Chair and Vice-Chair.”

Minutes