Appeal 3368885

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

In determining this appeal, as it involves a site located within a conservation area, I have had special regard to section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) which requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area including the Swine Conservation Area (the SCA).

The SCA comprises of a small linear rural settlement, with the majority of its buildings dating from the 19th and very early 20th centuries. Having regard to its [name], the SCA’s significance derives from its medieval monastic provenance, together with its very limited development post-World War II. This lack of substantive alteration or expansion to its built form provides Swine with a well-defined architectural language, a key part of which is a widespread retention of unassuming traditional materials. The importance of this characteristic is reflected within the [name], which states that the use of such materials is essential to achieving its preservation and enhancement.

[address], which has been enlarged to the rear through a two storey addition and a minor infill conservatory, possesses textured brown brickwork and roofing slates as are prevalent within the locality. Together with the regular arrangement of white windows across its visible side elevation, these materials harmonise the host dwelling with its surroundings such that it positively contributes to the character and appearance of the SCA as a designated heritage asset.

The proposed single storey rear extension would be constructed at an angle off the house’s existing two storey rear gable, with a full height window placed within its flank wall at the intersection of the two builds. It would be of a deliberately different contemporary design to that of the host dwelling, featuring black fibre cement cladding and large aluminium framed glazing below a flat, stepped membrane roof. The cladding would also be applied to the full length and height of a protruding parapet wall and would form the extension’s opposing side elevation onto the adjoining property.

By virtue of its restricted depth and given the deeper span of the adjoining house’s rear extension, the length and overall footprint of the proposal would not be inappropriate to the proportions of the host dwelling, notwithstanding its already extended size. In addition, and although it would subsume a small part of the existing rear roof slope, the scheme’s height would not be excessive, with the flat roof form assisting to produce a clearly subordinate mass that through its dimensions alone, would not appear as an unduly dominant enlargement.

However, the cladding of the extension as proposed is plainly at odds with the limited, neutral palette of long-established materials as are present on the host dwelling and across the SCA. Whilst the appellant’s statement makes written reference to examples of horizontal boarding within the village, no photographic evidence of this has been provided, and during my site visit I did not observe any comparable treatments in the area. The selection of this wall material is therefore incompatible with local distinctiveness such that it would be detrimental to the significance of the SCA.

The black shade of the cladding would accentuate its incongruous appearance as a modern material in jarring contrast to the muted surrounding brickwork, an effect amplified by its application to the substantial projecting parapet wall. Given its lack of context and the identified importance of traditionally sympathetic materials, I am not persuaded that its use would celebrate the host dwelling’s character, irrespective of the scheme’s contemporary design approach. The proposed flank elevation window positioned to abut the existing rear elevation would serve to further draw the eye to the development, with its contrasting size and design to the existing side windows contributing to a harmfully bold aesthetic.

I appreciate that through its positioning and massing, the adjacent neighbouring garage would partially block views of the extension from the highway, and that it would otherwise not be noticeable from the public realm. Nonetheless, limited visibility does not obviate the need to achieve high quality design which respects a site’s surrounding context and character and accordingly does not preclude harm arising to the character and appearance of the SCA.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Given the nature of the development and its limited scale in the context of the wider SCA, I find the harm that would arise from the proposal to be less than substantial, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight in the planning balance of the appeal. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires that less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the development.

The appellant states the scheme would future-proof the dwelling for modern use, improve energy efficiency, and add rainwater harvesting to enhance flood resilience and mitigate climate change. However, given the minor scale of the proposal, public benefits as arising from an enhancement to the building’s environmental performance as well as temporary economic activity associated with the construction process would be only limited. Consequently, this is not sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset I have identified, and the great weight I must apply to its conservation. Moreover, there is the potential for these same benefits to be realised through an alternative development that does not adversely affect the character and appearance of the SCA.

Overall, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host building and area including the Swine Conservation Area. It would therefore fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and conflict with Policies ENV1, S4 and ENV3 of the East Riding Local Plan Update 2025 – 2039. Policies ENV1 and S4 require, amongst other things, that development is of a high quality design through being respectful to the character of the area and by having regard to the characteristics of a site’s wider context including through the use of appropriate materials that have a strong association with local historical built form. Policy ENV3 supports proposals that conserve or enhancing the significance of heritage assets. Additionally, the scheme would conflict with the [name] Planning Document 2025 which advises that extensions should generally incorporate matching materials to the host building, with alternatives requiring justification with reference to local context.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.