Appeal 3275653

The appeal is dismissed.

[name] 2021 the Government published its revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), representing its up-to-date planning policies and how they should be applied. As the fundamentals of the Framework in respect of the historic environment remain unchanged, I have not found it necessary to further seek the views of parties to this appeal and am satisfied that no prejudice has arisen as a result.

Following the submission of this appeal, the appellant states that they have insulated the property internally and now only wish the external rendering of the property to be considered in this appeal. The Procedural Guide to Planning Appeals – England states that the appeal process should not be used to evolve proposals and is clear that revisions intended to overcome reasons for refusal should normally be tested through a fresh application. I have limited details of the likely finish and appearance of the proposal omitting the insulation, and the Council has not had the opportunity to consider this updated proposal. In the interests of fairness, I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis of that which was before the Council when it made its decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The site lies within the Eakring Conservation Area (CA), the significance of which lies in its medieval origins, layout, historic associations and historic buildings. Many of the buildings, new and old, are brick-built and of those, almost all have finely detailed brickwork decoration and details. Although the appeal site post-dates much of the early history of the village, as an attractively detailed brick-built dwelling in a prominent location, made more so by its relatively unusual painted finish, it does nevertheless make a positive contribution to the significance of the CA as a heritage asset.

The likely loss of articulation of the details on the building, including the brickwork details around the roofline and the increased depth of the window and door reveals would cause a loss of visual interest to the building. In the face of a lack of specific detail around how the proposal would change the appearance of the building, and the likely overall reduction in the character of the building, I consider that the proposal would cause a less than substantial degree of harm to the significance of the CA as a heritage asset.

I agree that energy efficiency would be a public benefit as well as a private one, given the government approach in the Framework. However, given the prominence of the building and the likely loss of detailing, articulation and lack of information around the final appearance of the property with regard to window and door reveals, the gable end detailing and roofline, I find that the harm to the significance of the CA as a heritage asset would not be outweighed by those public benefits. In light of the great weight to be given to the heritage asset’s conservation I also therefore conclude that the proposal fails to preserve the character or appearance of the CA.

The proposal would therefore harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to [name] 9 and 14 of the Newark and Sherwood Local Development Framework Core Strategy and [name] (March 2019), and Policies DM5, DM6 and DM9 of the Newark and [name] and Development Management Development Plan Document (2013). Combined with the Framework, these policies seek, amongst other things, to ensure that development is of appropriate design for the character and appearance of the area and protects and enhances the historic environment.

[name] note the personal circumstances of the appellant, it has not been demonstrated that this proposal is the only way to achieve the improvements sought, nor has sufficient detail been provided to allow me to reach any other conclusion than the one set out above with regard to the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations which indicate that a decision be taken other than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.