Appeal 6001682

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal relates to the [name] listed building known as ‘4 ([address]), 5, 6 (Appledore), 7, 8, and 9 (The Old Post Office), [address]’, which is located within the Willersey Conservation Area (CA). In reaching my decision, I have considered the statutory duties under sections 16(2) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 (the Act).

The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve the listed building, or any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses.

The appeal property forms part of a wider [name] listed terrace of cottages dating from the 18th century. The terrace of 6 two storey units was listed in 19851, and consist of coursed, squared and dressed limestone, with limestone slate roofs, except No 9 which has a tile roof with flat gable coping to the right gable end and Nos 4 and 5 which have artificial stone roofs and ashlar stacks from their gable walls, in brick.

No 7, the appeal property, has a 20th century brick chimney, and the listing description refers to 19th century metal casements, with a 19th century part-glazed beaded plank door.

Given the above, I find that the special interest and significance of the listed building to be primarily associated with its historic and architectural interests as a fine illustration of late 18th century domestic vernacular architecture. Important contributors in these regards which are pertinent to the appeals are its high-quality 1 [name]: 1305588 architectural detailing, general consistency, surviving historic fabric externally and internally, legibility of its surviving historic core and plan-form; and group value.

Pertinent to the appeal, whilst the property has been extended at the rear, including at first floor level, the existing internal layout of no 7 reflects the original one room deep cottage, with a rear wing now mostly a more modern flat roofed addition, providing the existing snug/dining area and kitchen. As such, the historic plan-form remains legible and the phases of the property and its extension, clear. Whilst the interior is not included in the list description, this does not indicate a lack of special interest or significance, and the group value does not reduce the importance and contribution of the individual properties towards the significance of the asset.

I observed that the character and appearance and therefore the special interest and significance of the [name] are in part derived from its historic origins, and the rich and cohesive number of vernacular historic buildings that denote its evolution. As a part of a vernacular 18th century residential townscape, the appeal building contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole.

This proposed works seek to remove most of the remaining internal wall between kitchen and snug/dining area. I observed that this wall is of some thickness, consistent with the main building, and the appellants set out that an exploratory hole in this wall exposed ‘some historic fabric’. The survey ground-floor plan from 2007 also shows the rear projection with substantial masonry walls and a corner fireplace, and a thinner more modern walling for the adjoining infill.

Whilst setting out that the wall in question is not part of the ‘principal historic structure’, the appellants appeal statement acknowledges that ‘’there may be a small element of historic fabric present’. Moreover, the Heritage Statement submitted for the approved rear extension2 sets out that ‘The 500mm masonry wall between the kitchen and the dining, is the original external wall’. This supports the position that the wall that forms the subject of the proposed works comprises the side external wall of the historic rear wing.

It therefore defines the historic, possibly original plan and form of the listed building, and, from the available evidence, also appears to substantially comprise primary historic fabric. As such, this wall is integral to, and contributes positively to the special interest and significance of [site address] .

I note that the historic maps appear to show No 7 divided into two, however, as set out by the appellant, ‘these maps contain a number of inaccuracies’, and no substantive evidence has been submitted to support this, and I observed nothing in my site visit that would suggest that this was the case.

Similarly, whilst there is a modern concrete floor to both snug/dining area and kitchen, this does not necessarily relate to the age or significance of the walls, with no substantive evidence to suggest that the walls sit on top of this floor for example.

Whilst the masonry piers either side of the existing opening were constructed as part of the 2015 approval3, the works would involve the removal of a part of this historic wall. Whilst not affecting the external appearance of the building or the 2 Application references 21/00289/FUL & 21/00290/LBC 3 Application reference 15/02688/LBC group, this would then lead to a loss of historic fabric. By resulting in a seemingly single open and full width rear room, there would also be a consequential weakening of the legibility of the historic plan form.

I conclude that the proposed development and works would fail to preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the [name] listed building ‘4 ([address]), 5, 6 (Appledore), 7, 8, and 9 (The Old Post Office), [address]’ and would harm its significance as a designated heritage asset.

The above harm to significance would result in some residual harmful effect to the character and appearance of the CA. It would not therefore preserve the character and appearance of the CA as a whole and would harm its significance as a designated heritage asset.

Given the fairly localised nature of the development and works relative to the building and CA as a whole, I find the harm to both heritage assets to be, individually and cumulatively, at a minor level of ‘less than substantial’ but nevertheless is of considerable importance and weight.

The appellant points to the works providing a more usable space for modern living. There would be some economic benefits brought about through the investment into the property and the construction phase. Also, social benefits would be gained through improvements to the local housing stock. Again, given the scale of development, these benefits would each be small.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicates that, when considering the impact on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation irrespective of whether any harm amounts to less than substantial harm to significance. Overall, the weight I ascribe to the public benefits is not sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight I attach to the harm to significance I have found.

Consequently, the harm identified to the significance of the designated heritage assets has not been supported by clear and convincing justification. The works and development therefore would conflict with the statutory presumptions set out in sections 16(2) and 72(1) of the Act and fail to satisfy the historic environment conservation and enhancement policies of the Framework.

The appeal site is located within the Cotswolds National Landscape. Given the internal nature of the works, the proposal would conserve the natural beauty and special qualities of the National Landscape.

For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.