Appeal 6000715

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description for the works from the Council’s decision as it is more thorough and accurate than the description used on the application form.

The effect of the proposal upon the significance of the grade II listed building known as 9-19 Eastgate Street1.

Section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA) requires the decision maker to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

The appeal building is part of a terrace of 10 matching dwellings, which evidence suggests was built in the mid-19th century. The front of the terrace has a striking appearance, with large windows set within a grid of plain pilasters and string courses, and narrow front doors that sit under semi-circular fanlights. This creates a distinctive principal façade that displays a strong sense of order and repetition. At the rear the terrace is arranged into three full storeys plus a small dormer window to each dwelling to serve an attic room. Although the rear is simpler it still displays a strong sense of order, with no projecting extensions and an even alignment of windows. Both front and rear elevations appear to feature a good 1 [name] 1095457 proportion of surviving original joinery. These characteristics of the front and rear of the terrace are primary contributors to its significance.

Most of the dwellings underwent alterations in the 1970s when they were remodelled under Council ownership. This included the insertion of small secondary windows above most of the front doors to serve newly inserted first floor bathrooms. Additionally, the rear was remodelled by the insertion of a new back door to most of the dwellings at a raised height, to match the rest of the ground floor. Where new back doors were inserted the cellar access was downgraded to a small hatch, meaning that the basement could only reasonably be used for storage. The cellar windows were also blocked up. It is understood that a WC previously existed in the same location as the current one and that this was an original component, which is unusual for a building of this date and is therefore of considerable significance. It was originally externally accessed and at a lower level.

These changes have caused a degree of harm to the external appearance of the terrace and to the internal plan form. Internally a clear sense of the historic front and back room arrangement is retained on the ground floor, despite the changes. The original masonry basement steps are retained, as is evidence of the position of the original back door which can be seen from within the basement. This remaining historic fabric provides a clear understanding of how this building was originally laid out and therefore contributes to our understanding of the original design of the terrace and how the individual dwellings functioned.

The appellant would like to improve access to the basement by inserting a staircase so that it can be used on a day-to-day basis. This would involve the removal of the original masonry steps and the existing WC, to form a straight flight of stairs that would arrive at ground floor level adjacent to the backdoor. The loss of the original basement stair would cause clear harm. Additional harm would arise from the loss of the WC; although the existing room largely dates from the 1970s, it marks the position of the original WC, which is an unusual feature for a building of this age. Furthermore, the creation of a new landing at the rear would also erode the sense of the building’s original layout in this area, which can still be understood today.

In terms of the need to provide clear and convincing justification, it is unclear why the existing stair could not be retained and brought back into use. It would appear to be possible for new steps to be added to the existing, to arrive either in the kitchen or in place of the cupboard adjacent to the foot of the main staircase. Both would allow the WC to be retained, which would retain a sense of the historic arrangement at the rear. It would also be of practical benefit for the occupants of the dwelling and would therefore be good for its long-term conservation.

It is suggested that it would not be possible to satisfy the Building Regulations if the existing masonry stair is re-used. The case for this is not properly made in the submissions. The Building Regulations provide for some flexibility as the building is listed; furthermore, some flexibility may be provided because the stair partly exists and would provide access to the basement which would not be used for primary living accommodation.

The appellant submits that the Council granted consent for similar or more extensive works to other houses in the terrace, including what is suggested to be the same scheme that was recently allowed at No. 13. Consistency within decision making is important and given that the appeal building is part of a terrace, and other buildings within the terrace were subject to the same interventions in the 1970s, subsequent changes that have been consented is a relevant matter. The Council suggests that there are differences, however I cannot come to a definitive view on this as plans for these schemes to show what existed and what was consented are not before me. Therefore, the evidence relating to alterations that have been consented on other buildings within the terrace is not sufficient to cause me to come to a different view on the acceptability of the proposal.

At basement level a large section of the lateral wall that runs between the front and rear of the building would be removed. This would appear to be primary historic fabric, and again no justification is put forward for this alteration.

The position of the former basement windows is easy to identify from inside. Reinstatement is acceptable in principle and would significantly improve the usability of the basement floor, returning it to the level of functionality it would have originally had. However, the proposal is lacking in detail. There are no joinery details or elevation details to show what the reinstated windows would look like. It is suggested that consent is sought to reinstate the openings at this stage and further consent would be sought for the new window fittings. It would not however be appropriate to grant consent if the openings would be boarded up for a period until further consent has been obtained for the new windows. Boarded openings would have a harmful impact on the appearance of the building, and there would be no guarantee that a further application for listed building consent would be forthcoming.

Furthermore, it would be necessary to form lightwells outside both the reinstated openings as both would be partly below external ground level. However, no details of this are provided. On the basis that a lightwell can take many different forms I am not satisfied that this is a matter that should be left to condition as it is an element of detail that is integral to the proposal.

The reduction of the width of the masonry pier close to the foot of the basement stair is acceptable in principle on the basis it is modern, and it would be reasonable to secure additional details regarding this by condition if the appeal is allowed.

At ground level the proposal includes the reinstatement of the former opening between the hall and front reception room. This was blocked up as part of the 1970s work. The blocked opening was easy to see at the time of my visit, defined by modern cement plaster with original lime plaster finishes to the surrounding area. This is an acceptable intervention that would not cause harm, and further details could be secured by condition if the appeal is allowed.

The drawings propose the reinstatement of the kitchen chimney breast, which was blocked up as part of the 1970s work. This work has been carried out. The original form of the chimney breast has been reinstated. The drawings suggest that the retained piers would be narrower and updated drawings would be helpful in this respect, as the Council points out. However, the text makes it clear that the chimney location is assumed and intended to show that the change would be a reinstatement. I do not therefore consider it necessary for the drawings to be amended.

The proposal includes the formation of a small ensuite within the attic room. The Council is concerned about the sealed space that would be created behind the proposed shower. It should be possible to provide a way of ventilating this area either into the roof void behind or to the adjacent stairwell, and I would be content with leaving this matter to a condition if the appeal is allowed.

I have found that the proposal would harm the significance of the listed building. In terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) the harms would be less than substantial. The extent of harm that would arise from the changes to the floor plan at the rear, from the loss of the basement stair and the removal of the large section of wall at basement level would be of a moderate level. This is because although these involve the loss of primary historic fabric, they are relatively small changes in the context of the whole listed terrace. The detail relating to the window reinstatement is lacking, and leaving the openings boarded up until a further consent is obtained would cause a further low level of less than substantial harm.

The harms would however be of considerable importance and weight, and Paragraph 215 of the Framework establishes that any harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposal would increase the usability of the basement floor, which would improve the way that the appeal building functions. However, the appeal building is already well laid out to serve as a dwelling, and there is nothing before me to suggest that improving the day-to-day usability of the basement floor would be anything more than a private benefit to the appellant. As a matter of principle, reinstating the basement level windows would improve the appearance of the terrace by returning a lost feature to its front and rear façades. However, without the necessary details and the suggestion that the opening would be boarded up in the short term, this is a public benefit that attracts little weight.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework states that great weight should be given to the conservation of a heritage asset. The public benefits carry limited weight, and they are not sufficient to outweigh the level of harm identified.

In summary, the proposal would harm the significance of the listed building. In reaching this conclusion I have had regard to the requirements of the LBCA. Although development plan policies do not strictly apply to applications for listed building consent, the proposal would also conflict with the policies set out in the Council’s decision.

For the reasons above, the appeal should be dismissed.