Appeal 6001298

The appeal is dismissed.

The effect of the proposed development on the host property, with regard to its significance as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA), and the character and appearance of the area.

[site address] is a two-storey detached house set within a sizeable plot, located along a residential street within an urban environment. The property fronts the road and is built close to the back of the pavement edge. The house benefits from a large rear garden.

The road largely comprises terrace houses, but detached properties are also a feature along the road, and there is evidence of previous subdivision of plots and infill development. Houses range in age, style and appearance, with facing materials which largely include light coloured render to external walls or attractive red facing brick.

The appeal site is located within an Area of [name] (AHHTV), recognised for its concentration of heritage assets and other historic features that make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

The appeal property has a commanding presence along the street due to its position and the juxtaposition of neighbouring dwellings to either side being set back from the road, thus increasing its prominence within the street scene. Indeed, with its double fronted, red brick appearance and decorative brick detailing, and its pitched, slate tiled roof, the appeal property, despite requiring some refurbishment, is an attractive building that has a focal appearance along the street.

There are other examples of double fronted properties along the street and many of the houses in the locality have a traditional appearance, built up to the back of the pavement edge. Many of the houses appear to be of a similar age to the appeal property and have similar architectural features.

The older, more traditional houses, contribute positively to the local character of the AHHTV. In contrast, the more modern dwellings along the street, particularly those to either side of the appeal site have a neutral effect within the street and do not positively contribute to the local character of this part of the AHHTV.

The Council has identified the building as an NDHA, despite it not being on the latest version of the ‘Dudley Local List’ (September 2021) or the Dudley Heritage Environment Record. However, the Planning Practice Guidance establishes that an NDHA can be identified through a number of processes including when determining applications1. Likewise, Historic England Advice Note 7 ‘Local Heritage Listing: Identifying and Conserving Local Heritage’ also identifies that an NDHA can be established during decision making on planning applications.

The significance of the appeal building as an NDHA largely derives from its age and architectural appearance, which is characteristic of its time with the front elevation being double fronted, with blue and red brick detailing, dentil details, stone cills and chimney stack. It is an attractive building that has architectural interest, as do the other similar buildings along the street. Located within the AHHTV, the building, along with other buildings nearby, also have a degree of historic interest, albeit the history of the building and others nearby is limited. Nonetheless, and notwithstanding that the building is not on a Local List, I am satisfied, on the evidence before me, that the appeal building is an NDHA, which has local heritage significance and makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area.

Contrary to the attractive architectural appearance of the host building and the other traditional houses nearby, the proposed development would introduce two modern houses into the street scene, set back from the road by frontage parking.

The demolition of the building and its replacement with two modern dwellings would result in harm to the significance of the NDHA through its complete loss. Similarly, the loss of an attractive building which makes a positive contribution to the street scene and AHHTV, and its replacement with two modern detached dwellings would also be harmful.

It is the case that the layout of the buildings would be consistent with adjacent dwellings, and the design includes architectural features that are common on other houses within the street. Even so, the houses would have an individual design, which would, in the context of the preponderance of traditional houses along the road, have a stark appearance. Although the modern design would result in modest harm, the proposals would nonetheless result in visual harm to the street scene and the AHHTV.

Consequently, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be harmful to the host property, with regard to its significance as a non-designated heritage asset, and the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, the proposal would fail to accord with Policies ENV2 and ENV3 of the Black Country Core Strategy (2011) (the BCCS), and Policies L1, S6, S8 and S12 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy (2017) (the DS), which together, amongst other 1 Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph 040 [name]: 18a-040-20190723 things, seek to retain non-designated heritage assets which make a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness, while also requiring development to consolidate or enhance the positive and distinctive historic character of the locality.

The appeal scheme has been put forward as [name] and [name] (self-build). The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) at Paragraph 73 b) supports small sites to come forward for self-build housing. However, the appellant does not identify an appropriate mechanism for securing the dwelling as a self-build plot. In particular, a signed legal agreement has not been submitted with the appeal. As such, without an appropriate means to secure the development as self-build, I attach limited weight to the matter.

Reference has been made to the possibility of the demolition of the building being carried out under permitted development rights. Nevertheless, no substantiated evidence has been submitted which demonstrates that the conditions and limitations set out in Schedule 2, Part 11, Class B, of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended have been complied with. In these circumstances, I attach limited weight to this matter.

The Framework, at paragraph 216, sets out that, in weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

Given the proposed development would result in the complete loss of the NDHA, the harm attracts substantial weight. [name] acknowledge that the structural survey suggests that the building has suffered neglect, with cracks in the masonry and movement of the walls observed, the survey does not identify the probable causes of the cracks and movement. Indeed, it is evident that the lack of maintenance has contributed to the condition and appearance of the building. As such, although underpinning is suggested and the replacement of the ground floor and first floor would be required, the scope and level of the works are not clear. Without this level of detail, I am not persuaded that the building is beyond repair and its renovation is not economically viable.

The Council accept that the most recently published [name] results indicate that the Council’s delivery of housing was below 75% of the housing requirement over the previous three years. Consequently, the presumption in favour of sustainable development, as set out at Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework applies. In these circumstances, Paragraph 11(d)(ii) of the Framework states that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse effects of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

The complete loss of the NDHA would be harmful to the historic environment. The harm attracts substantial weight, and the proposal would be contrary to paragraph 216 of the Framework. It would also be visually harmful, and it would not accord with the Framework, in particular paragraph 131, which seeks the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places. Therefore, the conflict between the proposal and Policies ENV2 and ENV3 of the BCCS, and Policies L1, S6, S8 and S12 of the DS, should be given significant weight in this appeal.

It is the case that the proposal would provide acceptable parking arrangements, garden space and separation distances between neighbouring properties. The scheme also proposes and promotes a number of renewable energy design features, and soft landscaping could be proposed and existing trees retained. Nevertheless, these are requirements of planning policy and taken together they are neutral factors that carry limited weight.

The replacement of the existing house, with two new dwellings, would add an additional energy efficient, family dwelling in a sustainable urban area. The use of previously developed land would also make efficient use of land and contribute to boosting the supply of new housing, as referenced in the Framework and emphasised in the [name] - ‘Building the homes we need’. As a small site the development could also be delivered relatively quickly. There would also be social and economic benefits to local services during the construction and occupancy phases.

In combination, the identified benefits attract positive weight in my determination. However, due to the small-scale nature of the proposed development the benefits of the scheme attract modest weight overall.

[name] recognise the value of reusing brownfield sites for new homes, in order for this to be effective, it should not come at the unacceptable expense to NDHA’s or the character and appearance of the area. In this case the identified harm would be substantial. As a consequence, the benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the identified harm that would be caused by the proposed development.

In these circumstances, the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Accordingly, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that the development should be determined otherwise than in accordance with it. For these reasons, the appeal should be dismissed.