Appeal 6001470

The appeal is dismissed, and listed building consent is refused.

A combined application was made for planning permission and listed building consent. However, this appeal was made following the Council’s failure to determine listed building application ref PL/2025/01383 (the application) only. Consequently, this decision relates to the works for which listed building consent is sought.

The appeal site contains the [name] listed building Castle Cottage1 (the listed building). It is also within the Lockeridge Conservation Area (CA). Therefore, in reaching these decisions, I have exercised my statutory duties under the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

Notwithstanding the description of the works given on the application form, this appeal is determined on the basis that the proposed scheme also includes the internal works indicated on the plans that were before the Council at the time the application was determined. These include the re-configuration of part of the ground-floor accommodation and associated internal demolition and construction works.

The Council has raised no concerns regarding the form of the porch extension, the internal alterations or the removal of the chimney structure. [name] have no reason to depart from the Council in these respects, had the scheme been otherwise acceptable, it would have been necessary to impose conditions requiring details of external materials that would be used, a demolition and construction method statement, and details of fixings, joints or interventions to the listed building, to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The purpose of such conditions would have been to prevent harm being 1 Official list entry number: 1033804 caused to the significance of this listed building from insensitive alterations and additions.

An officer report has been provided containing the Council’s putative reasons for refusal of the application. These reasons have been used to inform the main issues in this appeal.

Development plan policies are not usually determinative in section 20 appeals. However, insofar as they are relevant to the proposed works, and therefore capable of being material considerations, I have considered the development plan policies cited in the Council’s putative refusal reasons.

The main issues are; • whether sufficient information has been provided from which to i) establish the significance of the [name] listed building at [site address] and the Lockeridge Conservation Area, and ii) establish the impacts of the proposed scheme on the significance of these heritage assets; and • whether the proposed works would i) preserve the [name] listed building at [site address] or any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses, and ii) preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Lockeridge Conservation Area.

The Design, Access and Heritage statement (the heritage statement) submitted in support of the application was not comprehensive. However, and even if the level of detail provided in support of the application was not on its own, sufficient to enable the impacts of the proposal on the significance of the listed building and the CA to be fully understood, the heritage statement did identify the heritage assets that would be affected.

Moreover, when the heritage statement is taken together with the submitted plans and the evidence provided by both main parties as part of this appeal, as well as onsite observations, there is sufficient information from which to i) establish the significance of the [name] listed building at [site address] and the Lockeridge Conservation Area, and ii) establish the impacts of the proposed scheme on the significance of these designated heritage assets. This additional evidence includes copies of the official list entry for [site address] , the Lockeridge Conservation Area Statement2; and the appeal statements provided by both main parties.

While the evidence indicates that parts of the listed building originally date from the 15th, 17tth or early 18th Century, in the years since, it has been subject of considerable internal and external alterations, as well as extensions. Despite this, the historic vernacular form of the house and its exterior materials - which include Sarsen stone walls and thatched roofs, can still be readily understood. In addition, the large historic fireplace within the living room remains in situ, and the exterior of the building retains much of its early character. 2 Kennet District Council – Lockeridge Conservation Area Statement – June 2003m

Moreover, and although the windows and doors within the building are of a range of proportions, designs and ages, they tend to be modestly sized and multipaned, with an architectural authenticity that reflects the building’s historic residential use as well as its early vernacular form and detailing. In addition, and pertinent to this appeal, the windows serving the existing kitchen are of a form and design that are in keeping with the age and style of those on the earlier parts of the building.

Nevertheless, and despite having a thatched roof and modestly sized multi-pane windows, the later brick-built extension that accommodates the kitchen and bedroom 2, does not make a meaningful contribution to the significance of the listed building. Nor does the fairly modern external brick-built chimney that adjoins the rear wall of this extension.

That being the case, the significance of this heritage asset is principally derived from its historic interest and the architectural interest of its remaining early historic form and fabric.

The CA comprises much of the village of Lockeridge but excludes areas of 20th century development to the east and west of the settlement. A special quality of the CA stems from its verdancy and the widespread use of local stone and thatch as building materials for many of the older buildings. However, many of the later red brick buildings variously have steeply pitched roofs and gables with plain clay roof tiles, exposed timberwork, and decorative brickwork and stone, which are also distinctive features that add to the special interest of the CA.

Despite the differences in the appearances of many of the buildings within the CA, most of the individual houses appear to broadly reflect their early form, and most are within reasonably sized plots. Consequently, the range in ages and designs of buildings, the limited pallet of materials used, the high-quality design detailing, and the sense of spaciousness within parts of the CA, all contribute to its significance.

Although the walls are painted, [site address] is largely constructed of Sarsen stone, and it has a thatched roof and modestly sized and multi-paned casement windows. It is also set within a sizable plot with gardens around it. Consequently, it exemplifies the special qualities of an earlier house within the CA, and makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole.

Even if the appellant is willing to amend the scheme by reducing the width of the proposed ‘French’ door opening in the east elevation, I must assess the scheme that is before me. This includes a large opening which would incorporate a pair of French’ doors and 2 additional glazed panels of similar dimensions to the doors. Even though these doors and panels would be timber framed and have a glazing pattern similar to other windows within the house, the large size of the resultant opening would be incongrous with the smaller windows within the rest of the building. As such, and although the opening would be formed within a later part of the building, it would erode a distinctive characteristic of the listed building that makes a substantial contribution to its significance.

The re-siting of the window in the north elevation of the kitchen to a slightly higher position in the wall would have a neutral effect on the significance of the listed building. This is because the works would not require the removal or alteration of parts of the fabric of the building that contribute positively to its overall significance. It is also because the design and dimensions of the window and its head would remain the same. Nevertheless, this is a neutral consideration.

The removal of the chimney which is a modern addition to the building, would remove clutter and simplify the form of the building. To a small extent, this element of the scheme would help to better reveal the significance of the listed building. However, and notwithstanding this consideration, the scheme as a whole would cause harm to the listed building and to its significance.

Irrespective of whether the proposed openings within the kitchen would be publicly visible, the listed building is safeguarded for its inherent architectural and historic interest. Moreover, and although the large opening would be to the rear of the building, where it would not be visually prominent from outside of the appeal site, the harmful effects identified to the listed building would also result in some residual harm to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole.

In line with paragraph 212 of the Framework, I give great weight to the conservation of designated heritage assets.

Due to the location and extent of the works, the harm that would be caused to the significance of the listed building would be towards the lower end of the scale of less than substantial, and the harm that would be caused to the CA as a whole would be at the very lowest end of the scale of less than substantial. Nevertheless, these findings of harm carry considerable importance and weight.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework indicates that where a development will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

Even if the scheme would not cause harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings, this is a neutral consideration, rather than a public benefit.

I have no doubt that the enlarged and reconfigured house would afford the appellant and future occupiers with improved living conditions. However, on the basis that the existing house provides adequate living conditions, this would be a private benefit rather than a public one, as set out in the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance3.

Economic benefits would arise during the implementation of the works. However, if the scheme was not undertaken, I do not anticipate the cessation of use of the building or that it would fail to be suitably maintained. Nor am I persuaded that the only way of securing the public benefits that would flow from improvements to the energy efficiency and increased natural lighting of the property, would be via the works proposed.

Therefore, and because of the modest scale of the scheme, the associated public benefits would be small, and very little weight is attributed to each of them. Moreover, when taken together, these public benefits would not outweigh the harm that would be caused to the significance of the listed building or the CA. 3 Paragraph:020 [name]: 18a-[phone]

For the reasons given, the works would not preserve the [name] listed building or features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses. Nor would they preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Lockeridge Conservation Area. Consequently, the scheme would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the provisions of the Framework that seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment. The works would also conflict with policies 57 and 58 of the Core Strategy4. Collectively, and amongst other things, these require extensions and alterations to be of a high standard of design that is complimentary to the locality, and to conserve, and where possible enhance, the historic environment.

The appeal site is within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). In exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or affecting land so designated, I have a duty to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB. Scattered farmsteads and settlements within a landscape otherwise seemingly unchanged for centuries are distinctive features of this landscape designation. Given the modest scale of the proposed works, which would be undertaken within an existing residential plot, the scheme would have a neutral effect on the special qualities of the AONB, and as such the natural beauty of this area would be conserved. However, this is a neutral consideration.

For the reasons given, this appeal should be dismissed and listed building consent should be refused.