Appeal 3310626

The appeal is dismissed.

My assessment is based on the amended proposal which was before the Council when it made its decision and which is described on the decision notice as ‘single storey extension, insertion of roof lights, repositioning of dormer windows on east elevation and replacement flat roof to garage’. However, it is clear from the ‘officer’s report’ provided that the Council’s concerns solely relate to the design of the single storey extension. I have taken this into account in defining the main issue.

The main issue is whether the single storey extension would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Burton Conservation Area (CA) including the setting of the Grade II Listed Building at The Granary.

The significance of the CA mainly lies in its buildings and spaces which form a traditional village character. The high quality built environment includes several listed buildings. The majority of the older buildings in the village are constructed of limestone, as are many of the walls that often flank the roads and gardens. Roofs are mainly covered in slate or pantiles.

The West Lindsey District Council Burton Conservation Area Appraisal (CAA), notes that [site address] derives from some of the service and domestic buildings that were associated with [name]. Following the break up of the estate, some buildings were demolished, others were converted to housing and some new dwellings were also built.

The Granary is a late C18 building in residential use. Its distinctive three-storey form, traditional materials and its former use as a stable block to [name] are integral to its significance. The north facing elevation of this listed building is experienced as sitting in the vicinity of a compact grouping of buildings including [site address] .

[site address] has some detracting elements in terms of its flat roofed garage and large windows with PVCu frames. Even so, this dwelling and the other buildings to this part of the CA more often include stonework to their facades and roofs covered in slate or clay pantile. These elements positively contribute to the prevailing traditional character and appearance of the CA and to the setting of The Granary, adding to its significance.

The modest height of the extension, its stonework walls and its pitched roof form would correspond with the adjoining section of the host building and the neighbouring dwelling at [address]. However, the design would be a hybrid of traditional and modern elements. In particular, the expanse of the roof slopes coupled with the contemporary appearance of the black zinc profiled roof sheeting would not harmonise with the clay pantile roofs of its host or [address]. It would also negatively contrast with the profile, texture and colour of the other traditional roofing materials in the CA.

The zinc roof would be highly visible from the north facing windows of The Granary as well as in the foreground of The Granary in views from the upper floor windows serving [address]. The incongruous roof material would also be discernible in views over boundary treatments on [site address] and from the garden of [address].

During my site visit, I also saw the other developments in the CA referenced by the appellant. The Aviary is a detached dwelling of individual contemporary design whereas the extension before me would link into a traditional pantile roof. The zinc cladding used to a section of the dwelling at ‘Robinswood’ formed part of a comprehensive design for a replacement dwelling in a more rural part of the CA where the built context is different to the appeal site. Therefore, I do not find these examples directly comparable to the appeal proposal.

With regards to an extension allowed at appeal at [address], Standon, Stafford1, the appellant confirms that dwelling is neither listed or within a CA. I have therefore considered the proposal on the basis of its site-specific circumstances taking into account the way it would respond to the distinctive qualities of its immediate surroundings within the CA and the setting of The Granary.

Having regard to the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the CA and the setting of The Granary. The Framework does not set out a scale of harm to be applied in terms of less than substantial harm. It states that where a development would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. 1 Appeal Ref APP/Y3425/D/15/3006786

The proposal would provide additional living space resulting in a private benefit for any occupiers of the host dwelling. The other alterations to the east elevation of the dwelling would provide more sympathetically scaled dormer windows to those that presently exist. However, any public benefit derived in this regard would be somewhat diminished by the olive grey framed PVCu double-glazed units within the new dormers. The composition of these windows would themselves be out of keeping with the CAs overriding traditional built vernacular. Overall, there would not be public benefits sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the significance of the identified heritage assets and the great weight that I must apply to their conservation.

I conclude, the single storey extension would not preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA including the setting of The Granary. In that regard it would conflict with the character and setting, conservation and design requirements of Policies LP17 (Landscape, Townscape and Views), LP25 (The Historic Environment) and LP26 (Design and Amenity) of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (2017) and the Framework.

The proposal would not preserve the significance of the CA or the setting of the [name] listed building, The Granary. The proposal therefore conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. The appeal is therefore dismissed.