Appeal 6001447

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

The descriptions of the development and works have been taken from the combined application form. The roof repairs have already been undertaken and I have assessed what has been installed on its merits. As the works to the listed building have already taken place and are unauthorised, granting listed building consent retrospectively will not alter that fact. Should the appeal be allowed and listed building consent granted, the works would be better described in terms of ‘retention’ or ‘regularisation’ of the said works.

Since the applications were submitted, an orangery has been approved and built at the rear of the building between the two single-storey outriggers and does not appear on the submitted plans.

As the development and works relate to a listed building within a conservation area, I have had special regard to sections 16(2) and 66(1) and paid special attention to section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

As the two appeals effectively concern the same scheme, but under different, complementary legislation, I have dealt with both appeals together in my reasoning to avoid unnecessary duplication.

The main issues in this appeal are whether the development and works: i) preserve the [name] listed building known as Pollards1, or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses; and ii) preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Harwell Conservation Area (the HCA).

According to the official listing Pollards is a house dating from the 16th century. It is a two storey, 3-window main range with a 2-unit lobby-entry plan and a 17th century cross-wing, and later alterations. It is roughcast and now painted white. The listing mentions it having an old plain-tile roof. The special interest and significance of the listed building, insofar as it relates to these appeals, are largely derived from a combination of its historic and architectural interest as an example of a 16th century vernacular domestic dwelling within a rural village. The building’s age, surviving historic fabric and legibility of its plan form, and use of traditional construction techniques and materials make important contributions in these regards. The building also has group value with other buildings as part of the street scene and wider village townscape.

The appeal site is also located within the HCA, which largely comprises the historic core centred along the [address], along which there are buildings of different styles, designs, sizes and ages. From the evidence before me and what I saw during my site visit, I consider the character and appearance of the HCA, and thus its special interest and significance, are in part derived from the architectural richness and variety of its surviving historic buildings and street pattern and the relationship of its buildings and spaces, which reflect the economic and social development of the village.

Pollards is a large building that occupies a prominent corner location at the end of the [address] on the bend where it turns to become [address], and which is a main route through the village. The building is setback from Townsend and on a slightly elevated position above the road, allowing its front and side elevations and roof slopes to be fully seen. The building is made more noticeable by being painted white. As a result, the expansive roof slope across the main range, which is on the oldest part of the building, is a striking feature of the building. The building is thus a prominent and important component of the street scene and wider townscape. It is also an integral part of the history of the village. Its heritage merit and aesthetic charm mean Pollards positively contributes to the character and appearance of the HCA as a whole and thereby to its significance as a designated heritage asset.

The appellant’s evidence explains that some tiles were damaged in bad weather causing water ingress, and other sections of the roof had been sprayed with 1 National Heritage List for England: list entry number 1368645 insulating foam on their underside. Damaged roof tiles have been removed and replaced on parts of the front and rear roof slopes of the main range. On the rear single storey outrigger extensions, facing roof slopes have been completely re-tiled.

The existing plain clay roof tiles have an irregular profile and camber, but create a harmonious collection of tiles with subtle variations in colour tones and profile that give the roof slopes, and the property, character.

The replacement tiles are a uniform bright orange/red. The colour difference is particularly noticeable where the new tiles have been inserted into an existing roof slope and lie adjacent to existing tiles, particularly on the front and rear roof slopes. On the front roof slope, key feature of the building, the new tiles have been inserted as a broad stripe down the middle of the roof slope, extending from the ridge and beneath the central chimney down to the eaves. At the rear, the new tiles have been inserted as a row along the entire ridge and as a wider band along the lower part of the roof slope close to the eaves, and across the entire width of the roof slope. Whilst the colour difference alone is stark, it is also the uniform nature of the colour across the repaired sections which is in contrast to the variations in colour and tone of the existing tiles. A gully repair also shows a significant colour difference.

The new roof tiles also absorb moisture and reflect light differently to the existing tiles either side of them, even if the protective wax coating has come off. On my visit I saw that this was particularly noticeable as the tiles were damp and the sun was shining and the new tiles appeared brighter and shinier than the adjacent tiles on the same roof slope, exacerbated by the lack of colour variation in the new tiles.

In addition to the colour, the new modern tiles are smooth and relatively shiny with straight cut edges and a flat profile that produces a starkly uniform appearance. They thus lack the more uneven texture of a handmade tile that has aged over time and do not have irregular finish and cambered profile of the existing tiles, that has created the more characterful existing roof scape on the building, even if it is not wholly historic.

These striking side by side differences between the new and existing tiles and the way the new tiles have been laid in relatively straight lined sections result in an unsympathetic roof repair. The roof slopes that have been entirely replaced with the new tiles are still read adjacent to the existing rear roof scape and existing roof tiles such that the differences described above still apply.

Whilst a contrasting roof tile can show where an honest repair has been undertaken, repairs to a listed building should still be sympathetic and reflect the colour, texture and profile of the existing roof tiles. For the reasons set out above, the new roof tiles that have been used fail to do this. The roof repairs undertaken have therefore diminished the authenticity of the listed building and harmed the asset’s special interest and significance. Whilst parts of the rear roof slopes are less visible from the street, listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of whether or not close public views of the building can be gained.

The listed building is also an integral, important and prominent component of the village and character and appearance of the HCA as a whole. It follows that the harm caused to the listed building, whether publicly visible or not, has diminished the contribution the building makes to the HCA and resulted in some residual harm to its special interest and significance. Hence the works do not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the HCA and thus harm its significance.

The Framework states that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource. Paragraphs 212 and 213 of the Framework state that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification.

In finding harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, Framework paragraphs 214 and 215 require the magnitude of that harm to be assessed. Given the nature and extent of the proposal against the advice in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance I find the harm to both the significance of the listed building and the HCA would be towards the lower end of ‘less than substantial’. Even so, a finding of ‘less than substantial’ harm still carries considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires the harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Public benefits can also include works to a designated heritage asset to help secure its future.

Repairing the roof and preventing water ingress and deterioration of the historic fabric of the building would help preserve the heritage asset, which the Framework reminds us is an irreplaceable resource. There would also have been some limited associated short-term economic benefits to the local economy from the re-roofing work.

The appellant states that costs were a prohibitive factor to re-roofing the entire property. I accept there are costs involved to maintain and repair buildings, and these costs may increase for an historic building. Nonetheless repairs still need to be sympathetic. There is no substantive evidence to show why the red “[name]” roof tile was chosen, when the submitted technical data sheet shows there are a number of other colour options to choose from, including brindled and burnt colours and tones. Or why other roof tile manufacturers were discounted, some of which produce handmade tiles that seek to better replicate the quirks of heritage roof tiles. Or why locally-sourced reclaimed tiles could not be used, especially when only some of the roof tiles were being replaced. There is nothing to explain if these other roof tile options were considered and, if they were, why they were discounted. I therefore find that clear and convincing justification for the harm to the asset’s significance has not been provided.

The appellant refers to a number of examples in other villages/towns within the district, including on listed buildings and in conservation areas, where the Rosemary red tiles have been approved for use. That might well be the case, but does not mean they are a suitable match on all rooftops for all buildings. The appellant’s examples are also in different places, such as Wallingford and Abingdon, not Harwell. Furthermore, I do not have the details of these other buildings, their particular street scene settings and historic contexts, or the extent of the roofing projects. In any event, I must consider the appeal on its own merits and the roof tiles that have been used for repairs on Pollards.

Overall, the weight I ascribe to the limited public benefits is not sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight I attach to the harm that has occurred to the listed building and the HCA from the inappropriate roof tiles used for the roof repairs. Clear and convincing justification for the harm caused to the asset’s significance has not been provided. Accordingly, the works fail to preserve the [name] listed building and any features of special architectural or historic interest, and do not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the HCA. As a result the works that have been done fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the Framework.

The development would also conflict with Policies CP37 and CP39 of the Local Plan 2031 Part 1 and Policies DP23, DP36 and DP38 of the Local Plan 2031 Part

Collectively these seek, amongst other things, to ensure new development responds positively to the site and its surroundings and visually integrates and that proposals are sympathetic including in terms of materials and finishes (including colour and texture) in order to retain the special interests of the heritage asset.

I am also mindful of the duty under section 66(1) of the Act to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building nearby. The Council has provided the listing for the [name] Inn2. It is a [name] listed, two-storey early 17th century Inn, now public house, located on the opposite side of the road to Pollards. Its significance is largely derived from its architectural and historic interest as well as from its group value as part of the wider street scene of [address] and as part of the wealth of historic buildings in Harwell. Given the nature and extent of the works that have been undertaken to Pollards, I consider that the setting of the [name] is preserved and its significance is not harmed. The Council has raised no concerns in this regard.

Appeal A: The proposal would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no material considerations that outweigh this conflict. Therefore, for the reasons above the appeal should be dismissed.

Appeal B: For the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.