Appeal 3296497

The appeal is dismissed.

Two sets of proposed plans are listed, Plan 02 and Plan 03. I have determined the appeal based on Plan 03, the amended plan, which is listed as having been considered at the time the application was determined by the Council.

Whilst the ‘[name] submitted by the appellant refers to the Conservation Officer’s comments, the Council has confirmed that the Conservation Officer did not comment on this application. The comments relate to a previous scheme for this site ref: 21/0735/HHO.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the Trawden Forest Conservation Area.

The appeal site is within the Trawden Forest Conservation Area. This covers an extensive area including the settlement of Trawden, as well as other villages, farmsteads and the wider countryside beyond.

The significance of the Conservation Area is defined by a long history of human activity stretching from the remains of the ‘Forest’, to farming shown by the stone walls, farms and barns that survive. Later, the weaving industry developed in the area, resulting in the construction of a number of large mills. To support this industrialisation, the linear settlement of Trawden grew with its terraced housing and places of worship for the growing population of workers.

[site address] is at the end of a terrace of three properties at the southern edge of Trawden which is characterised by stone buildings and a converted former mill building. The appeal site lies close to the [name] and the rural landscape surrounding it. Adjoining the side elevation of the property is a lane and public right of way which rises upwards behind the site. Accessed off the lane, and to the rear of [site address] , is a modern house, ‘[address]’.

The appeal property, a former agricultural or mill building which has been converted to residential use, is a robust stone building with a glazed arched opening to the front. It has a traditional stone tiled roof with the eaves of the house sloping towards the south-east. The house has two existing extensions to the rear: a single storey, stone- built extension, and a brown coloured, unsympathetically designed pitched roof conservatory. The proposal would replace both buildings with a two-storey pitched roof extension.

The proposal would, despite the use of traditional materials, introduce a bulky, two storey extension which would cover most of the rear elevation. I understand that to enable a room to be inserted in the roof space, the ridgeline of the extension would be at the same height as the original building, but this would create a top heavy, dominant structure which would cause harm to the interest and character of the existing building.

The rear elevation of the extension would include an odd arrangement of three different styles of windows which would create an unbalanced design, uncharacteristic of a traditional building. Whilst appreciating the desire to have an open outlook and views of the surrounding countryside, the first-floor window would create a dominant feature, inappropriate to the character and form of the host building.

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. Paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, in this case the Trawden Forest Conservation Area, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

Although [site address] is at the edge of the village, a two-storey extension to the rear would be clearly visible within the surrounding area, particularly as it is an end terrace and at the junction of two lanes. Given the harm that I have found would be caused to the character and appearance of the host property, it follows that the contribution that the host dwelling makes to the significance of the conservation area, as a designated heritage asset would be significantly eroded by the proposal. As a consequence, harm would be caused to the character and appearance of this part of the Trawden Forest Conservation Area. The proposal would neither preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area and accordingly there would be conflict with the Act.

In assessing the degree of harm to the significance of the conservation area, as a designated heritage asset, as set out in the Framework, this would be less than substantial, as understood by the appellant, as the changes proposed are localised in terms of the Conservation Area as a whole. In such circumstances paragraph 202 of the Framework requires the harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Whilst it is understandable that the appellant wishes to increase the living and bedroom space and carry out improvements to his property, this is essentially a private benefit. The appellant has put forward some additional benefits to the scheme including improving the thermal efficiency of the building and using appropriate materials. However, these matters would likely be a requirement for both a new extension and to a building in a Conservation Area. Limited weight is therefore given to these matters.

Against the limited public benefit identified, is the great weight that I am required to give the heritage asset’s conservation. Accordingly, the public benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm to the designated heritage asset.

I conclude that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the Trawden Forest Conservation Area and that there are no public benefits to outweigh the harm that would be caused to the significance of the conservation area as a designated heritage asset. The proposal would fail to accord with Policy ENV 2 of the Pendle Local Plan Core Strategy 2011-2030, adopted 17 December 2015, which seeks to achieve quality in design and conservation, and make a positive contribution to the historic environment and local identity and character, and the design objectives and conserving and enhancing the historic environment objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The appellant has referred to the officer report recommending approval of his proposal which was subsequently refused by the Colne and District Committee which determined the application. [name] have identified harm, as set out above, this does not affect my decision.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.