Appeal 6001035

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

As set out above, there are two appeals on this site, one for planning permission, and the other for listed building consent. Planning permission and listed building consent are under different legislation; however, I have dealt with both appeals together in my reasoning.

Therefore, as required by sections 16(2, 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses; and paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

The evidence refers to the proposal being amended from uPVC to a metal frame, although this is not shown on the submitted plans. However, I have determined the appeal on the basis that the conservatory would be metal.

The main issues are whether the proposal would: • preserve the grade II listed building known as Maltings adjacent to No 51; and • preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area (CA)

The appeal site is a former maltings, converted to residential use. It has a large, enclosed garden to the rear. From the evidence before me, the special interest and significance of the building, insofar as it relates to these appeals, derive from its historic and architectural interest. The two-storey building, plus attics, is a building type commonly found in market towns in the 18th century. Maltings, as in this case, tend to be vernacular in character and illustrate the importance of the brewing industry at that time, when beer was regularly drunk by most of the population.

The grade II listed building is constructed of squared and coursed limestone rubble, with red brick to the side elevations and at first floor level at the rear. It has a Collyweston slate roof with attic windows to front and rear. Maltings typically had long elevations and regularly spaced windows, as found here, although when the building was in use as a maltings, the windows would likely have been covered by shutters or louvres for ventilation. On the east gable elevation there are wooden double doors under a brick arched opening.

At the rear, the building has direct access to the [name]. This was canalised in the 17th century enabling the river to be navigable to the [name] where barley and malt, amongst other goods, were exported. Therefore, the location of the building suggests that it is likely to have been used in the movement of goods for the export trade.

The proposed conservatory would be fully glazed and have a mono-pitched roof which the appellants consider would be simple in form and scale. Although it would need to be fixed to the listed building, they contend that it would be reversible, lightweight and subservient. However, reversibility alone does not justify the acceptability of a proposal. In any case, once built, there is no mechanism to ensure that it would be removed at some future date, as the use of conditions would not be reasonable or enforceable as they would be unlikely to satisfy the required legal and policy tests as set out in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

Whilst the proposal would be a contemporary addition to the listed building, there is already an existing, large, modern conservatory on the rear elevation. The appeal proposal would be bigger. Whilst the appellant has agreed to change to a metal framework, this does not overcome concerns over the design and suitability of the proposal. Moreover, whilst it would be in a similar style to the existing, it would not be the same. Therefore, with no evidence before me to suggest that the proposed anthracite colour would match the colour of the existing, it would result in two modern conservatories of differing designs, on the rear of the listed building. 1 List entry number: 1360175

There would be no changes to the internal ground floor plan, and an existing opening would be used between the building and the proposed conservatory. However, maltings were typically linear in form. This has already been disrupted by the existing conservatory that has been constructed. An additional conservatory to the rear would further unbalance the form of the building, undermine its inherent character, and appear incongruous. This would harm its appearance.

The appeal site abuts the boundary wall with the neighbouring property. Therefore, as shown on the block plan, because of the alignment of the boundary wall, and the siting of the proposed conservatory, there would be a narrow triangular area created between the side elevation of the proposal and the wall. Visually, this would appear awkward.

Whilst there is a conservatory at No [address] (No 7), which I glimpsed from the rear garden of the appeal site, this is on the rear of a large dwelling house, where conservatories are more typically found. Moreover, I have limited substantive evidence of this addition, and whether the circumstances are comparable to the appeal site. In any case, maltings were industrial buildings, and even though [site address] has been converted to residential use, the proposed conservatory on the rear is not appropriate to the character of this building.

Although the appellant has suggested that the proposal would not harm the listed building because it is on the rear and would not be more widely visible, listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest, irrespective of whether public views of the building can be gained. Therefore, the fact that the elevations visible from the streetscape would not be altered is not the only relevant consideration.

Given the above, I find that the proposal would fail to preserve the listed building and its setting and any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. This would harm the significance of the heritage asset to which I must give considerable importance and weight.

[site address] is a small market town within the Fens, located on the north bank of the [name]. This has shaped the historic street pattern that follows the line of the river to the south and is an important feature within the CA. Extending from south to north is [address], which is lined with traditional buildings. The town prospered in the 18th and 19th centuries, as it was on the London to York coaching route. With a wide marketplace in the centre, the CA encompasses this historic core, as well as an open area to the north-east.

The special interest and significance of the CA, in relation to this appeal, derives from the mixture of commercial and residential buildings within the CA, resulting in interesting and pleasant streetscapes of vernacular buildings. These are constructed in limestone and brick, with Collyweston slate being the dominant roofing material. The appeal site is one of several maltings that existed in the town, suggesting the importance of a trade in barley and malt between the town and [name] ports.

Although only a small site within the CA, the proposal would be seen from neighbouring properties to the east, and because of its position close to the boundary and a projection of 3.75 metres from the rear elevation of the site, there would be some limited visibility from [address]. As the design of the proposal would be an unacceptable addition to a former maltings, it would harm the appearance of the CA.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. This would harm the significance of the designated heritage asset.

I have had regard to the grade II listed building, No 5, Stamford Road2 (No 5). The special interest and significance of the building derive from its historic and architectural interest. The symmetrically designed front elevation, which dates to 1823, replaced an early 18th century house. In addition to the 19th century extension to the side, a late 17th-century cottage is retained within a service wing. With its architectural features, it is a prominent building on [address] and points to the wealth of the town in the 19th century. It also highlights the changes that can take place to historic buildings over several centuries.

Attached to the appeal site is a brick boundary wall which separates the maltings from No 7. The depth and height of the proposed conservatory means that it would be clearly visible above the wall from the rear garden of No 7, and from the windows in the two-storey, brick wing, that I could see from the back garden of [site address] . Moreover, as the proposal would be viewed within the setting of No 5, it would cause harm.

The appellant has referred to a lack of objections to the proposal. However, Historic England does not comment on this type of development on a grade II listed building3, and the lack of objection does not outweigh or alter my concerns. Additionally, whilst the proposal would not affect the boundaries, the landscaping of the site or neighbouring amenity, this does not outweigh the harm to the building.

I have had regard to Historic England Advice Note 24, which provides general advice on alterations to heritage assets, and which the appellant has referred to.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of those assets and that any such harm should have clear and convincing justification. I find that the harm to the listed building to be less than substantial, and on the lower end of the scale. The harm to the CA is also less than substantial and limited in scale. These harms are, nevertheless, of considerable importance and weight.

Where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. 2 List entry number: 1165425 3 Arrangements for handling heritage applications: notification to Historic England and National Amenity Societies and the Secretary of State (England) Direction 2021 4 [name] to Heritage Assets, December 2025 (HEAN 2)

The PPG5 sets out what may be regarded as public benefits, such as works to a listed private dwelling which secures its future as a designated heritage asset. In this case, [site address] is already a private house and therefore has an optimum viable use as a dwelling. Whilst the appellant contends that the proposal would directly contribute to the conservation of the asset, as the development does not include any other works than the construction of the conservatory, there is limited substantiated evidence to support this.

The appellant asserts that the proposal would provide improved functionality and living conditions, contributing to sustainable development and aesthetic enhancement. [name] understand that the footprint of the existing dwelling is small, and it is stated there is no usable dining area, I have only limited evidence based on the ground floorplan and from what I saw at my visit. Moreover, the need for more space is a private benefit. Although the construction of the proposed conservatory would provide some limited economic benefits, these are not sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified to the significance of the

Given the above, and with only limited public benefits, I conclude that the proposal would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and paragraph 212 of the Framework. It would also conflict with policies DE1 and EN6 of the South Kesteven District Council Local Plan, 2020, and Policy DNP8 of the Deepings Neighbourhood Plan, 2021. Collectively these policies require high quality design that makes a positive contribution to local distinctiveness and the character of the area, and the protection and enhancement of heritage assets and their settings.

For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, the proposal would fail to preserve the special historic interest of the listed buildings, and the character or appearance of the CA, contrary to the Act and the Framework. Consequently, the proposal would not be in accordance with the development plan.

I therefore conclude that the appeals should be dismissed.