Appeal 6000744

The appeal is dismissed.

No [site address] is a grade II listed building dating from 1874. It is double-fronted, and is two-storeys in height plus basement.

The ground floor is currently in use as a dental surgery and the proposal involves the part removal of a section of wall which separates the hallway from the front room, immediately to the right when entering the premises, which is used as the surgery’s reception area.

It is explained that this will allow for staff to better survey persons entering and leaving the building. It would also allow for improved circulation around this part of the ground floor.

The site falls within the designated Lewes Conservation area.

The main issues are:

whether the works preserve the listed building or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses; and

the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, with particular regard to the conservation area location

Section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCAA) 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 significance of this building’s listing relates primarily to its external architectural features. Nonetheless, the building’s interior layout has a legibility which reflects its architectural character.

The appellant has described the wall as ‘timber stud with plasterboard’. Such walls can often be load-bearing, and were commonly engineered to support ceiling or upper-floor loads.

The Council says that the plan form of such late Victorian houses is a defining feature of its special interest, and the loss of this clear cellular structure would be harmful thereto, requiring significant intervention to support the structure above. Although the appellant disputes this assertion, no structural details have been provided to accompany the appeal papers. It is merely said that a new structural beam will be placed in the wall at head height. Further, the Council indicates that during the application stage the appellant indicated he was unable to find any original internal layout plans of the building. This would have much better illustrated the proposal and its implications.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that, when considering the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to that asset’s conservation. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration of the heritage asset and, in instances where harm is identified, the degree of such is a matter for the decision maker’s assessment. Further, this must be given considerable weight, and requires convincing justification.

The starting point when considering proposals to a listed building’s interior is always the plan form or layout of the original building. All alterations will be expected to respect the original plan form and to work round it so that it remains readable. Room proportions must not divide the floor into ill-proportioned, irregular spaces. Therefore, the complete or substantial removal of original walls will not normally be acceptable. In this instance, though, only a relatively small section of wall would be removed.

That said, given the absence of supporting, technical evidence it is insufficient for the appellant’s [name] to merely say that ‘the proposed changes to the appeal property have been carefully considered to preserve the special interest of the listed building’, and that ‘the removal of a section of one wall could not be considered to result in harm to the special interest of the building...’

These are sweeping statements; the former has not been demonstrated, and the latter is not substantiated by direct evidence.

After careful consideration I must agree with the Council’s opinion that there would be a loss of integrity to the characteristic layout, redolent of its age. The appellant makes reference to certain internal alterations to particular features, which have taken place. However, this does not, in itself, justify the current proposal.

I, therefore, consider that there would be resultant harm to the historic fabric of the building.

As mentioned the building lies within the Lewes Conservation Area (LCA). In accordance with my statutory duty under s72(1) of the [name] have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

Irrespective of the LCA’s wider character, due to the fact that the proposed works are wholly internal, I am satisfied that its character and appearance would be preserved.

With reference to paragraphs 214 and 215 of the Framework, in finding harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, the magnitude of that harm should be assessed. Having regard to the nature of the scheme and the impact on the significance of the heritage asset I find the harm to be ‘less than substantial’ for the purposes of the Framework. Nonetheless, this should still be given considerable importance and weight.

In such circumstances, paragraph 215 advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme.

The appellant says that the new opening will allow better verbal and visual connection with persons at the reception desk and patients in the waiting room. I acknowledge that this would likely occur but, given that there would be some loss of structural integrity, a balance must be achieved so as to avoid damage to the significance of the building and its fabric.

Intended alterations should be based in a proper understanding of the building’s structure yet no direct evidence has been provided to indicate that such an understanding has yet been been gained here.

In realising the Council’s particular concerns at the application stage the appellant could have attempted to address these as, with only limited information and details given, it has not been demonstrated that the listed building would be treated with the necessary respect.

There would be a loss of historic fabric resulting from the proposed partial removal of a section of this internal wall installation and, due to the said shortcomings of the supporting material, and the absence of any plans showing the original floor layout, I do not consider that the scheme has been properly justified. I accept that there would be some public benefit from the alteration, but this does not outweigh the harm that could arise.

Although development plan policies do not strictly apply to applications for listed building consent, the proposal would not accord with the objectives of policies SD15, SD12 and SD13 of the South Downs National Park Local Plan 2014-33.

Overall, I must conclude that the scheme would fail to preserve the special architectural or historic interest of this [name] listed building. This is not outweighed by any public benefits that would arise. Both the character and appearance of the LCA would, though, be unaffected.

Accordingly, the appeal does not succeed.