Planning Appeal
Copy of Appeal Decision following site visit on 7th March 2005
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant consent, agreement or approval to details required by a condition of a planning permission. The appeal is made by Right Reverend G H Cassidy against the decision of Rushcliffe Borough Council. The application Ref 03/01700/REM, dated 28 December 2003 (with Certificate A dated 28 November 2003), sought approval of details pursuant to conditions Nos 1,2, of a planning permission Ref 02/00488/OUT, granted on 11 September 2002. The application was refused by notice dated 25 June 2004. The development proposed is erection of new church hall at St Marys Church, Radcliffe on Trent. The details for which approval is sought are: design, external appearance, means of access, landscape.
I allow the appeal, and grant planning permission for approval of details pursuant to conditions Nos 1,2, of a planning permission Ref 02/00488/OUT, granted on 11 September 2002 at St Marys Church, Radcliffe on Trent in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 03/01700/REM, dated 28 December 2003, and the plans submitted therewith, as amended by the revised plans received by the Council on 23 April 2004, subject to the following conditions:
- Development shall not commence until a detailed scheme for the environmental improvements to the highway frontage specifying the materials, specification, pedestrian protection facilities (pedestrian guard rail, bollards etc) and method of highway demarcation has been submitted to and approved in writing by local planning authority. The use of the building shall not be commenced until the approved scheme has been completed and the works shall be retained thereafter unless an alternative has been agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
- Prior to the installation of any external lighting, details shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
- Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
- The doors and windows to the south elevation shall remain closed except for access/egress or during an emergency unless otherwise agreed in writing by local planning authority.
- The developer shall give 14 days notice to the local planning authority prior to commencing any works on site and shall afford access at all reasonable times to any archaeologist nominated by the local planning authority, and shall allow that person to observe the excavations and record items of interest and finds.
Procedural Matters
Following my site visit, I obtained from the Council copies of the revised plans dated 23 April 2004 referred to in the committee report.
Reasons
The proposed church hall has been designed to sit between a 1960s rectory and the Grade II listed church. The building would be set back from the highway and I am satisfied that the siting and design would ensure that views of the new building would be restricted from the centre of Radcliffe on Trent and views of the church would be retained.
The north west elevation would be viewed when approaching the site from Nottingham. This elevation would be comprised of large glazed screens that would allow views into the building giving an openness to the development and work of the church, whilst it would allow views out to the church and churchyard. To the rear of the glazed elevation there would be a fair faced stone wall to reflect the materials of the church.
The trees on the church site would be retained and together with the church tower they would dominate the site and the entrance to the centre of the village. Whilst non-traditional, the roof of the proposed hall would be low lying and slightly curved so that it would be well below the ridgeline of the rectory and the eaves of the Lady Chapel. As such, it would respect the scale and landmark quality of the church.
The front of the proposed building would be open to the pavement so that it formed a small public square and the proposed paving would emphasise the Whipping Post. A 2-storey spine wall would run through the building to form a separation between the rooms and the public spaces. The opening up of the angles between the buildings and the use of stone would reflect the new building's position and relationship to the church. The front foyer area would be open to the public spaces using glass and timber columns whilst the other elevations would be brick at low level with timber cladding over, which would soften the appearance of the building against the trees. The roof would be finished with covered tern coat stainless steel which would be likely to weather within about 6 months to look like lead. As such, it would harmonise with the more traditional roofs in the street scene.
In my view, the proposed Church Hall although of modern appearance would be a building of architectural quality and its materials would compliment the adjacent Grade II listed church. Furthermore, the church would remain the dominant building with views along the street not being blocked by the proposal. The street frontage wall is important for its alignment rather than its structure and this would be reflected in the paving which would re-use some of the stone.
I do not consider that the boundary wall between the churchyard and rectory garden is of any particular architectural or historic interest and so its demolition would not affect the setting or any features of special interest of the church. The boundary wall to the highway is about 13m long and is in a state of disrepair. Although it forms part of a continuous wall of varying age, I do not consider that its loss and replacement with the proposed building would be detrimental to the street scene. The design of proposed building would take advantage of the street frontage rather than hiding behind the wall. Thus it would be more open to the users of the community. Whilst the proposed building would be visually more prominent than if it were sited behind the wall, I do not consider that it would be so dominant that it would detract from the setting of the church.
Conditions
I have had regard to the Council's list of suggested conditions in the light of Circular 11/95. In the interests of highway safety, I consider it appropriate to impose a condition in respect of environmental improvements to the highway frontage. Given the sensitivity of the site, I consider it appropriate to impose a condition in respect of external lighting. Given the concerns raised by Environmental Health in relation to the doors which back onto Church Close, I consider it appropriate to impose a condition to address this. To ensure that any archaeological items are recorded, I consider it appropriate to impose an appropriate condition.
Conclusions
My overall conclusion is that the proposal would not be out of keeping with the character of the area and that it would not harm the setting of the church. As such, I find no conflict with national policy for the preservation of listed buildings, Policy ENV1 of Rushcliffe Borough Local Plan, 1996 or Policy GP1 of Rushcliffe Borough Replacement Local Plan.
(signed) Jane Stiles - Inspector