Appeal 6001568

The appeal is dismissed.

As the appeal site is in a conservation area and concerns a listed building, I have had special regard to sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

At my site visit it was clear that work had commenced and been substantially completed. However, the work on site did not match the plan before me (PL01E). A window had been retained on the ground floor of the rear elevation of the original property, the extension has different fenestration, and it has been set back from the rear elevation at first floor to enable the outline of the original window to be visible which has been removed and bricked up. I have not been presented with any revised plans. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt I have considered the appeal on the basis of the plans before me.

The main issues are: • the effect of the development and works on the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building including its setting; and • whether or not the development preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Boston Conservation Area

No [site address] is a grade II listed building forming an end of four terraced buildings constructed from red/brown brick with a pantile roof dating from the late eighteenth century. It has mainly timber fenestration and retains most of its original features. Consequently, its significance is derived from its architectural and historic interest as an example of domestic architecture of the time in the waterside location. Its setting is formed from the views along the [address] where it is readily appreciated and visible within the terrace.

The Boston Conservation Area (the CA) covers a large part of the town centre which surrounds the Parish Church of [name], a significant local landmark and the market place. It extends to include buildings either side of the river flowing through the town. As such the CA’s significance is marked by the number of historic buildings demonstrating the towns evolution together with their relationship to the historic street pattern and the river.

There are many aspects of the proposal which would be acceptable, including the principle of the extension and the proposed internal alterations. However, the loss of the ground floor window in the principle rear elevation and its replacement with French doors would result in the introduction of a design feature which would not be reflective of a late Georgian dwelling. Furthermore, there would be unjustified loss of original historic fabric, in the form of the brickwork required to be removed to accommodate the doors. The proposal would also result in the loss of a first floor window. While it would be bricked up incorporating a reveal to show the original position of the window, the extension would be built flush to the rear wall so that it would be not visible. Together the alterations would alter the rear elevation to such an extent that the ability to appreciate the historic elevation would be diminished and the significance of the building would be harmfully eroded. Although the works would be to the rear of the building, this would not mean that there would be any reduction in the harm to the significance of the listed building.

However, given that the alterations would all be to the rear of the building, and therefore not visible for public vantage points, the character and appearance of the CA would be preserved with the building still being appreciated as a historic waterside building.

The harm caused to the significance of the listed building would be less than substantial and at the moderate level of harm within that spectrum. I note that the building was in a poor condition before renovation and these works will secure the building improving its condition and ensuring its continued use in the town contributing to the local economy. These are significant benefits. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that the insertion of French doors, or the loss of the first floor window are essential to secure the optimum viable use and that the works could not be secured in a different way. [name] saw this to be case at my site visit.

Consequently, the benefits of the proposal are not sufficient to outweigh the less than substantial harm caused to the significance of the listed building to which I give considerable importance and weight.

For the reasons above, I conclude that while the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CA, it would harm the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building and hence its significance. It would therefore conflict with Policies 3 and 29 of the South East Lincolnshire Local Plan 2022-2036 adopted 2019. These require that proposals use high quality design and do not prejudice the special architectural or historic interest of a listed building.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and the considerations I outline above are not sufficient to outweigh that conflict. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.