Appeal 6001013

The appeal is dismissed.

At the time of my visit, development at the appeal property unrelated to the proposal was underway, including to its rear. Plans of these changes are not before me however, and so I have based my decision on the existing and proposed plans submitted by the appellants and considered by the Council and third parties.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the [site address] Conservation Area (CA), within which the property lies.

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires that I pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. The CA encompasses much of the village of [site address] . The Odiham and [site address] Conservation Area Appraisal (CAA), November 2022, identifies the architectural quality of the village and townscape. Relevant to this appeal, the significance of the CA is the attractive quality of its buildings.

[site address] is a detached, relatively modern two-storey dwelling. It has traditional proportions including a large roof, double fronted gables and a subservient wing with dormers. Although described in the submissions has having a neutral presence, the CAA identifies the property as being a positive contributor to the CA. Either way, its existing design does not harm the character or appearance of the area.

The proposal seeks to significantly change the front façade of the dwelling, to become what is described as Georgian-inspired. This would include the creation of parapets to the front elevations of the main dwelling and its wing, and an infill two storey front extension, with a stone portico entrance. It would include windows of Georgian design, and the use of render all round because of problems matching the existing bricks. The Council does not object to a Georgian remodelling of the property in principle.

Parapets are not uncommon on Georgian properties, such as the examples provided from Odiham. That said, most there appear to be shallow in depth. The proposal would not extend beyond the current front building line. Even so, it would result in flat roof extensions of appreciable depth, giving the front elevation an excessive degree of mass, bulk and horizontality. Windows of similar proportions and design to the proposal exist in Odiham. Nevertheless, on the appeal property and particularly its subservient side wing, the width and distribution of the windows would fail to reflect the symmetrical balance and vertical emphasis associated with Georgian properties, including those cited.

The side and rear elevations of the dwelling would retain their existing shape and form, including a large roof plane, front gables and dormers, and the narrow existing chimney. However, these elements of the dwelling would clash with the grander Georgian-like appearance of the front elevation. As a result, the property would have little architectural cohesion or unity. [name] properties in Odiham have differing side and front elevations, but none have been shown to have the jarring contrast of styles of the proposal.

The front elevation of the appeal property would generally be seen head on, for example from the entrance. Nonetheless, it would not always be experienced as a one-dimensional elevation. There are few if any publicly obtainable views of the dwelling. Even so, the need for good design applies regardless of the prominence of the site, particularly being within a CA. Consequently, the proposal would not accord with the attractive quality of the buildings within the CA, thus undermining the significance of the CA hereabouts.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would appear contrived, incongruous and inauthentic, thereby harming the character and appearance of the area, including the CA as a whole. It would thus conflict with policy NBE9 of the Hart Local Plan (HLP), adopted April 2020, and saved policy GEN1 of the Hart Local Plan (Replacement) and its [name], dated April 2009. These require proposals to have a good standard of design, and to be in keeping with local character. I give great weight to the harm to the designated heritage asset and its significance, as required by paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

HLP policy NBE8 requires the conservation or enhancement of heritage assets, and states that harmful development will not be permitted unless it meets the tests in the Framework. In the language of Framework paragraph 215, the harm caused by the proposal would be less than substantial, and so must be weighed against public benefits.

The proposal would result in additional economic benefits to the local economy during construction. It would also result in the building achieving higher environmental standards and being more suitable for modern living. Nonetheless, the proposal is primarily for private benefit, and the public benefits would be relatively small. Accordingly, I conclude that these benefits are not of sufficient weight to outweigh the harm to the designated heritage asset. As a result, the proposal would conflict with the advice of the Framework, and with HLP policy NBE8.

For the reasons given, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case, and the weight I give to them, do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed.

At the time of my visit, development at the appeal property unrelated to the proposal was underway, including to its rear. Plans of these changes are not before me however, and so I have based my decision on the existing and proposed plans submitted by the appellants and considered by the Council and third parties.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the [site address] Conservation Area (CA), within which the property lies.

Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires that I pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. The CA encompasses much of the village of [site address] . The Odiham and [site address] Conservation Area Appraisal (CAA), November 2022, identifies the architectural quality of the village and townscape. Relevant to this appeal, the significance of the CA is the attractive quality of its buildings.

[site address] is a detached, relatively modern two-storey dwelling. It has traditional proportions including a large roof, double fronted gables and a subservient wing with dormers. Although described in the submissions has having a neutral presence, the CAA identifies the property as being a positive contributor to the CA. Either way, its existing design does not harm the character or appearance of the area.

The proposal seeks to significantly change the front façade of the dwelling, to become what is described as Georgian-inspired. This would include the creation of parapets to the front elevations of the main dwelling and its wing, and an infill two storey front extension, with a stone portico entrance. It would include windows of Georgian design, and the use of render all round because of problems matching the existing bricks. The Council does not object to a Georgian remodelling of the property in principle.

Parapets are not uncommon on Georgian properties, such as the examples provided from Odiham. That said, most there appear to be shallow in depth. The proposal would not extend beyond the current front building line. Even so, it would result in flat roof extensions of appreciable depth, giving the front elevation an excessive degree of mass, bulk and horizontality. Windows of similar proportions and design to the proposal exist in Odiham. Nevertheless, on the appeal property and particularly its subservient side wing, the width and distribution of the windows would fail to reflect the symmetrical balance and vertical emphasis associated with Georgian properties, including those cited.

The side and rear elevations of the dwelling would retain their existing shape and form, including a large roof plane, front gables and dormers, and the narrow existing chimney. However, these elements of the dwelling would clash with the grander Georgian-like appearance of the front elevation. As a result, the property would have little architectural cohesion or unity. [name] properties in Odiham have differing side and front elevations, but none have been shown to have the jarring contrast of styles of the proposal.

The front elevation of the appeal property would generally be seen head on, for example from the entrance. Nonetheless, it would not always be experienced as a one-dimensional elevation. There are few if any publicly obtainable views of the dwelling. Even so, the need for good design applies regardless of the prominence of the site, particularly being within a CA. Consequently, the proposal would not accord with the attractive quality of the buildings within the CA, thus undermining the significance of the CA hereabouts.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would appear contrived, incongruous and inauthentic, thereby harming the character and appearance of the area, including the CA as a whole. It would thus conflict with policy NBE9 of the Hart Local Plan (HLP), adopted April 2020, and saved policy GEN1 of the Hart Local Plan (Replacement) and its [name], dated April 2009. These require proposals to have a good standard of design, and to be in keeping with local character. I give great weight to the harm to the designated heritage asset and its significance, as required by paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

HLP policy NBE8 requires the conservation or enhancement of heritage assets, and states that harmful development will not be permitted unless it meets the tests in the Framework. In the language of Framework paragraph 215, the harm caused by the proposal would be less than substantial, and so must be weighed against public benefits.

The proposal would result in additional economic benefits to the local economy during construction. It would also result in the building achieving higher environmental standards and being more suitable for modern living. Nonetheless, the proposal is primarily for private benefit, and the public benefits would be relatively small. Accordingly, I conclude that these benefits are not of sufficient weight to outweigh the harm to the designated heritage asset. As a result, the proposal would conflict with the advice of the Framework, and with HLP policy NBE8.

For the reasons given, I have found conflict with the Development Plan as a whole. The material considerations in this case, and the weight I give to them, do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the Development Plan. This leads me to conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.