Appeal 3326601

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Wimbotsham Conservation Area (CA).

The CA (1979) relates to what was originally a linear village which falls steeply towards the [name] (east to west) and which includes a village green. Its significance is characterised by buildings of different ages but with a generally common scale, many with long rear gardens, with mature trees, grass verges and with views of distant agricultural land.

The appeal property is one of a pair of semi-detached, two storey dwellings at the entrance to the village at the junction of [address] and [address]. At some point it has been extended to the rear. It dates from the early nineteenth century and the Council’s Conservation Officer considers that, as it retains much of its historic integrity and being sited at the entrance to the CA, means that it should be considered a non-designated asset. I have no reason to disagree with that view.

While the proposed two storey side extension would be set down slightly from the ridge of the front roof to the dwelling, and its proposed front elevation would be set back somewhat from its existing elevation, its scale, being more than the existing dwelling and at least the same width as the host property’s front elevation, would not be subordinate to it. Instead, I find that it would Appeal Ref: APP/V2635/D/23/3326601 dominate the original building, both to its detriment and to that of the character and appearance of the CA.

The side elevation would include two storey, pitched gables with an entrance door between them. Even though there is already one such pitched gable to this elevation, the additions would add to the dominance of the extension over the original dwelling. The overall appearance would be that of a separate dwelling with its own entrance, and by unbalancing the front elevation, it would be to the detriment of the historic character of the host property.

It is possible that the side elevation may have had, at some time, an extension attached to it. Its rendered appearance detracts somewhat from its visual appearance. However, I have no details before me as to the nature of any such extension. In any event, I have determined the appeal based upon the current proposals.

In the context of paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023 (the Framework), the proposed development would cause less than substantial harm to the CA. While the covering of the rendering on the existing side elevation by the proposed extension might be said to lead visually to a public gain, any such public benefit would not outweigh the less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of the CA or that of the non- designated heritage asset.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would not accord with policies SC06, CS08 or CS12 of the [site address] and [name](2011), with policy DM15 of the Council’s Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (2016) or with paragraphs 130,189 and 203 of the Framework, all of which, amongst other things, aim to protect or enhance heritage assets and to require high quality development.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.