Appeal 3289765

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: a) The impact of the proposals upon the setting and significance of nearby Grade II Listed Buildings ‘[address]’ and ‘[address]’. b) The impact of the proposals upon the significance of the appeal property which is identified as a Non-Designated Heritage Asset.

The Council considers the appeal property to be a Non-Designated Heritage Asset as outlined within Paragraph 203 of The National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework). They do not however consider the building to be a curtilage listed structure despite it seemingly being associated with the Grade II Listed ‘[address]’ previously. I have no evidence before me to differ from this point of view and as such have dealt with this appeal accordingly.

The appeal property is a former coach house and stable building associated with the nearby Grade II Listed ‘[address]’. ‘[address]’ was designed around 1879-80 by [name] for his brother and it appears that both [site address] and the Grade II Listed ‘[address]’ were both associated with this building as ancillary structures.

The appeal property itself is an attractive asymmetrical building around an infilled courtyard, consisting of a larger frontage range and more modest single storey ranges to its rear. I consider the building contains some Arts and Crafts influences exhibited in the Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: APP/C1950/D/21/3289765 building’s simple pitched and half hipped roofs, use of pantiles and red bricks along with tall chimneys and other neo vernacular type details. The building has been modified over time through internal alterations and a side and infill extension into a former courtyard along with a gable first floor extension facing the street. Generally however, the building maintains its character as a former stable and coach house that would be typical of a building serving the estate of a house such as ‘[address]’.

In considering whether to grant planning permission Sections 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires me to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. The Framework also states that when considering the impact of proposed development on the significance of the heritage asset, ‘great weight’ should be given to the asset’s conservation.

Paragraph 203 of The Framework also states that the effect of an application on the significance of a Non-Designated Heritage Asset should also be taken into account in determining an application, where a balanced judgement will be required to the scale of any harm and the significance of the heritage asset. Policies D1 and D2 of the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan (2005) as well as emerging policies SP1 and SP9 of the Council’s Emerging Local Plan 2016, also reflect the aspirations for design quality and responsive design to the historic environment in light of proposed extensions to buildings.

I consider that both ‘[address]’ and ‘[address]’ exhibit high aesthetic, evidential and associative heritage values that are reflected in their Grade II Listed status. Such interest is determined through both the high quality architectural details, derived from the hand of a such a famous Architect as [name], and the evidential values associated with this early example of Arts and Crafts domestic architecture located so close to one of the principal [name] of the time. Despite the later development of much of the former gardens to ‘[address]’ the dominance and hierarchy of the estate remains and ‘[address]’ and [site address] are synonymous with this character and special interest.

I consider that the significance of [site address] is therefore intrinsically linked to that of both ‘[address]’ and ‘[address]’. I have evidence before me for instance that [site address] was constructed around the same time as ‘[address]’ and that it formed part of the ancillary uses associated with ‘[address]’, having served as the stables to the estate. I can also see on the late 19th century [name] plans1 that ‘[address]’ and [site address] both flanked what appears to be the main driveway to ‘[address]’. This was tree lined and skirted around the edge of an area of land that I consider is similar, if not the same, to that of the rear garden of the appeal property as it currently exists.

Architecturally too I consider that there are significant synergies between the three buildings on the site in terms of architectural forms, materials, bonding of brickwork and other architectural features. [name] consider that the architectural detailing of [site address] is not perhaps of the higher quality of the nearby Listed Buildings.

In light of this I consider that the significance of the Non-Designated Heritage Asset, [site address] , is defined both architecturally, associatively and through it being an estate building that was near contemporary with the nearby Listed Buildings. Moreover, although this relationship has been rather dramatically altered through the infill development within the grounds of ‘[address]’ in the 1980’s, I consider that this 1 [name] supplied by the Appellant within their Statement of Case. Appeal Decision Appeal Ref: APP/C1950/D/21/3289765 relationship can still be understood and that the appeal site should be considered to be within the setting of both ‘[address]’ and ‘[address]’.

I also consider that [site address] exhibits interesting architectural forms and features that are not only related to the wider former estate, but are also interesting and attractive in their own right. This includes the low horizontal roof forms, projecting chimney stacks and somewhat quirky features such as possible taking in door and louvred vents to the roof.

In assessing the proposals before me I notice that the proposed extensions would be largely focussed upon the middle and the rear of the building. Although a previous planning approval permits the Appellant a fall-back position in the form of a rear extension and dormer, the proposals before me would see an altered design and the addition of more significant roof alterations.

The Appellant’s appeal statement identifies the unbalanced character of the existing building, caused by the later first floor weatherboarded extension, as something that this proposal could rectify. I consider however, that despite this later addition, one element of interest in the building is its unbalanced and asymmetrical nature between the larger scale frontage range and the smaller, less substantial single storey courtyard ranges to the rear. Despite these elements having been infilled somewhat, the proposed modifications to the roof form would change this asymmetry and undermine the hierarchy between the frontage and rear ranges. In doing so the proposal causes harm to the interesting character and hierarchy of the building that is defined through such transitions.

Moreover, the proposal would substantially enlarge the building and in doing so would change the building’s origin as an ancillary estate building. In so doing the historic relationship between ‘[address]’ and ‘[address]’ would be affected. Although there would be no danger of the subservience between the buildings being challenged, I do consider that the important ancillary character of lower scale, more rambling buildings associated with such an estate, would be undermined and as such the relationship between the Listed Buildings and their historic setting would be partially harmed.

In assessing this Less than [name] cannot see any public benefits that would lead me to outweigh the harm I have identified above to both the character and appearance of the Non-Designated Heritage Asset and the harm to the setting of both ‘[address]’ and ‘[address]’. As such I consider that the proposal is in conflict with Policies D1 and D2 of the Welwyn Hatfield District Plan (2005) as well as the emerging policies SP1 and SP9 of the Council’s Emerging Local Plan 2016.

For the reasons above, taking into account all other matters raised, I dismiss the appeal.