Appeal 3372797

The appeal is dismissed.

On my site visit I noted that a side extension and renovation works are in the course of construction to the property. Within the appeal documentation the appellant advises that the construction of the side extension relates to the ground floor element of the scheme and is being constructed under permitted development allowances. Since submission of the appeal, I am advised that the appellants are in the process of applying for a Lawful Development certificate (LDC) in relation to a ground floor side extension to the property. I deal with this matter in my decision below.

The Council changed the description of the development and having regard to the information before me I have adopted this description as it describes the development more accurately.

The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, having regard to its status as a non heritage designated asset (NDHA), and the area.

The appeal property, [address], is a large two storey detached Georgian dwelling in spacious grounds, surrounded by agricultural land, located on the western edge of the village of Wittering. [address] has been defined as a NDHA and is nominated for inclusion on the Council’s Local List of Heritage Assets. The appellant does not dispute its status as a NDHA.

The property is an eighteenth century manor farmhouse sited in an elevated position. It has a symmetrical frontage with a centrally placed front door flanked by two bay windows. There is a later two storey rear extension with a pitched roof over which extends to the side and whilst this has altered the original form of the property it is subservient to the main dwelling and the original architecture of the main house has not been lost. Its value lies in its historic character, architectural proportions and contribution to local heritage.

The proposal would see the construction of a side extension which would infill the gap between the existing extension and the front façade of [site address] . It would result in a sizeable two storey addition which would be nearly half the width of the existing dwelling and extend beyond the gable end of the existing extension. The oversized nature of the extension which would all but project to the front façade would create an awkward and dominant form of development. It would be unsympathetic to the design and symmetry of the existing building, features which are characteristic of its historic and architectural significance. The use of lime render would make the proposed extension distinct and exacerbate the visual harm of the proposal.

I appreciate that the design and form of the roof is designed to reflect subservience to the original building and to avoid visual competition with the principal front elevation. I acknowledge too that parapet roofs can be found on Georgian buildings. However the introduction of a third form of roof style at eaves height would overcomplicate the roof forms and the overall mass of the extension as proposed would accentuate the form and status of the extension to the detriment of the existing building. The works proposed would result in a loss of articulation and appreciation of the host dwelling and its significance as a NDHA.

Notwithstanding that the appeal site is set well back from the road with a well screened curtilage, views are afforded of the front elevation. The extension would disrupt the legibility of the building in such views to the detriment of the building’s interest and significance. In any event, visibility is not the only consideration to be had as part of assessing the character, appearance and distinctiveness of a building. I acknowledge that heritage assets must be allowed to evolve and reflect changing needs and circumstances of users over time and modern additions can be an appropriate design approach. However, for the reasons stated I am not persuaded that the specific appeal proposal would avoid harm to the host dwelling in this particular case

I also acknowledge that Wittering has a wide character and appearance heavily influenced by the nearby RAF station. However, [site address] itself marks the edge of the village in the landscape and its location and scale visible on the approach to the village from the east informs its qualities as a significant rural property. Hence, the proposal would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that the effect of an application on the significance of a NDHA should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affected a NDHA, a balanced judgment will be required having regard to the scale and harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. In assessing the value of a NDHA and the impact of the proposal on it, consideration must be given to those matters that give significance to it.

I therefore find that the proposal would be unsympathetic to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. This would be detrimental to the NDHA. The proposal would therefore be contrary to Policies LP16 and LP19 of the Peterborough Local Plan which requires, amongst other matters, building form to respect the context of the site and regard to be had to the scale of any harm or loss to the significance of a NDHA. The proposal would also be contrary to paragraph 135 of the Framework which seeks to ensure that development will function well and add to the overall quality of the area and is sympathetic to local character and history as well as, as outlined above, paragraph 216 which requires the effect of an application on the significance of a NDHA to be taken into account.

I appreciate that the appellants have invested significantly into the property, and that renovation works are ongoing to secure a home with modern living standards. However there is nothing to suggest in the information before me that occupation of the home and its function as a dwelling, or its long term conservation are in any way dependent on the proposal for an extension. [name] attach little weight to this consideration.

The appellant asserts that a ground floor single storey extension would be allowable under permitted development rights. I have considered the plans submitted by the appellant in this regard. I note that there are differences in the form and size of the extension which would be allowable to the ground floor element of the scheme before me. Given the general renovation of the appeal property and the extent of building works on site, I acknowledge that a single storey ground floor side extension would be likely to be constructed at the host dwelling should a LDC be granted. However, such an extension would be of a lesser scale and mass than the proposal before me. Hence the weight that I give to this consideration is limited.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area and detrimental to the significance of this NDHA. The proposal would be contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations which would indicate otherwise. Accordingly for the reasons given, I hereby dismiss the appeal.