Appeal 6001173

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of development in the banner heading above from the appeal form and decision notice as it more accurately reflects the proposed development.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the significance of the host dwelling as a non-designated heritage asset.

The appeal property, also known as [address], is a single storey detached dwelling located near to the junction of [address] and [address].

During the course of the application, the Council identified the building as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA), this is refuted by the appellant within their Heritage Statement1.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) defines a heritage asset as a building or site identified as having a degree of significance meriting consideration in planning decisions because of its heritage interest. It includes designated heritage assets and assets identified by the local planning authority (including local listing).

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) describes NDHAs as buildings, monuments, sites, places, areas or landscapes identified by plan-making bodies as having a degree of heritage significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, but which do not meet the criteria for designated heritage assets. 1 Inception Planning Ltd, ref:34FR-HS-01 Version:C

Although the property is not identified on a local list, PPG advises that in some cases local planning authorities may identify NDHAs as part of the decision making on a planning application.

In this instance the appeal property is cited within the [name] (HER) as an example of a 17th [address] with later additions. Its significance lies in its history, with the HER stating that it is reputed to be the oldest cottage in Frogmore. I noted at my site visit that its architecture also contributes to its significance, including its simple pitched roof form with half-hip features, characterful brickwork and chimney stacks. Given the historic and architectural significance of the property, for the purposes of this appeal, I have treated it is an NDHA.

Although the building is not fully visible above the existing boundary treatment, the roofs, chimneys, and parts of the elevations are visible from public vantage points on adjoining streets and the nearby green. As such it contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposed extension to the north side of the existing building would be wider than the existing structure. It would wrap around the northeast corner of the property and would project forward of the bay window to the west. This would detract from the significance of the original building by effectively concealing the entire north elevation of the existing property and much of the north facing roof slope as well as obscuring a significant portion of the east elevation.

As a result of the overall size and scale of the extension and its proximity to the northern boundary it would compete with the dominance of the original building in the street-scene and would be overly prominent in this context.

The proposals would introduce an area of flat roof between the proposed and existing roof slopes. As a result, the roof would appear excessively bulky and would represent an incongruous addition to the existing dwelling which would fail to respect its design and proportions. It would also result in awkward roof junctions which would jar with the simple roof form of the original dwelling.

Overall, the proposed alterations to the dwelling would erode an appreciation of the buildings original design and scale, would overwhelm its appearance and detract from its character. As such the proposal would cause considerable harm to both its architectural and historic significance as an NDHA.

In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect NDHAs the Framework requires a balanced judgement having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the asset. I recognise that the dwelling may be in need of modernisation, however I am not convinced that this could not be achieved in a manner which would be less harmful to the significance of the NDHA. I therefore consider that the benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the harm I have identified.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would result in a harmful effect on the significance of the host dwelling as an NDHA. It would therefore conflict with Policies NBE8 and NBE9 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy and Sites) 2032 which together seek to ensure that development proposals achieve a high-quality design and conserve or enhance heritage assets.

Since the determination of the application to which the appeal relates, an application for a lawful development certificate for a proposed front porch and single storey rear extension has been granted. I am satisfied that if the appeal scheme were not allowed, there is every likelihood that this would be built. However, the extension allowed under permitted development rights would not be of a comparable scale, massing or design to the appeal scheme. Notably, it would not be wider than the original dwelling and the roof would be lower, allowing more of the original building to be perceived. As such the fallback position would result in a lesser degree of harm to the significance of the NDHA and therefore does not justify allowing the appeal.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.