Appeal 6000460

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above reflects a revised description, agreed between main parties during the application process, that more accurately reflects the appeal proposal.

The appeal scheme is retrospective in nature, with the development already having been complete.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the setting of the listed building known as [site address] .

The [site address] (Grade II Listed Building) is a public house that occupies a highly prominent position, on a corner plot adjacent to main vehicular roads. The public house lies within a predominantly residential area. However, it is located towards the fringe of the town, whereby there is a verdant and somewhat rural character, due in part to the presence of a significant number of mature trees and hedgerow, grass verges, generous building plots, as well as nearby pockets of woodland.

The building originally dates from the mid-18th century, albeit it has since been extended. The building is constructed in painted brick, with an old plain tile roof and displays an attractive front elevation consisting of two notable sections; firstly, the earliest two-storey, three bay element, with a central gable bricked porch; and also, a slightly taller 19th century range. The building has been further extended through a more recent 20th century single storey range to its rear, as well as a single-storey service bay. The building sits rather centrally within its sizeable plot, with a largely open frontage and garden space to its sides, as well as an ample rear car park.

The significance of the heritage asset, as a building of special architectural and historic interest relates primarily to its quality as a traditional, historic, public house reflecting the local vernacular and to the evidential historic and aesthetic value arising. Its significance though is also in part derived from the presence of open areas that surround the building. The building’s spacious, and notably open corner plot not only result in the heritage asset being visually prominent but also confers a sense of local eminence to the building. As such, I find the setting of the listed building positively contributes to its significance.

As indicated, the [site address] , has been subject to previous alterations. This includes the single storey 20th century extension that is an ancillary and mostly sympathetic addition. However, other modern and less sensitive additions to its rear have also taken place, such as, the introduction of service equipment and close boarded fences. Nevertheless, whilst these additions may not be aesthetically pleasing they are typical features that may be expected alongside public houses as part and parcel of their function. Furthermore, the previous interventions to the property that have taken place are more discrete and recessive in nature than the appeal development.

In contrast, the water station is a very large and bulky piece of apparatus. Its scale, together with its bright blue colour results in a stark, modern and rather visually dominant structure that does not relate well to its surroundings. Although located within the rear car park of the public house its sited alongside the listed building and is read in conjunction with it. Against the historic form of the public house, the water station, due to its scale and design, appears as a highly incongruous and unsympathetic feature.

Despite the appeal site’s existing boundary treatments, including a mature hedgerow, the water station due to its considerable size can also clearly be viewed from a range of public vantage points, whereby it detracts from the character of the area and the setting of the listed building. Vegetation meanwhile should not be relied upon to try and screen the development, especially as the long-term retention of vegetation cannot be guaranteed.

In the context of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the development amounts to less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset, and at the lower end of the scale. Nonetheless, the Framework requires that great weight be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets.

The development may provide public benefits through allowing the purchase of purified water, including by local businesses that offer associated services in the surrounding area. Such benefits have not been quantified by the appellant, however, from the evidence before me I consider that such benefits would be limited. Nor has any robust evidence been presented to demonstrate the proposal is necessary to maintain the viability of the public house. Accordingly, I do not find the public benefits of the proposal to outweigh the harm to the designated heritage asset.

Bringing the above together, I find the appeal development to cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and the setting of the listed building. It therefore conflicts with Policies E1 and E9 of the Test Valley Borough Revised Local Plan 2011 – 2029 (adopted 2016). Together amongst other matters, these policies seek to promote high quality development that conserves or enhances the historic environment.

A lack of objections to the appeal scheme, including from Romsey Parish Council or Romsey Town Council does not justify the development.

For the reasons outlined above, the appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan and material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.