Appeal 6001717

The appeal is allowed and listed building consent is granted for replacement of external doors and windows at [site address] , [site address] , Rotherwick, Hook, Hampshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, reference 24/02317/LBC, subject to the following conditions:

The works authorised by this consent shall commence not later than 3 years from the date of this consent.

The window spacer bars of the replacement windows hereby authorised shall be black.

Upon completion of the works authorised by this consent, any damage caused to the building in the course of carrying out the works shall be made good within 6 months in accordance with a scheme that shall first have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority.

As the proposal relates to a listed building I have had special regard to section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act).

The proposal was amended prior to the Council’s determination of the application to remove proposals for replacement of the three metal framed windows. Therefore, replacement of those does not form part of the appeal scheme, as confirmed by submitted drawings P02 [name] and P03 [name]. During the Council’s determination period there was also correspondence about the window mouldings, with the Council’s preference being for square rather than ovolo mouldings. Revised plans were submitted to the Council showing square mouldings and simple Avon handles rather than monkey tail handles. However, the Council’s officer report refers to the window design having reverted back to decorative moulding.

Nevertheless, from the information provided it is clear that during the course of their determination of the proposal the Council was given the opportunity to comment on the alternative design with square mouldings and Avon handles. Accordingly, the appeal is determined on the basis of the details as shown in Appendix 3 to the appellant’s appeal statement ([name] & Specifications with [name]). This includes the [name] technical specifications document and scale drawings of the windows and doors, all with square mouldings and Avon handles. No party is considered to have been prejudiced in so doing.

The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve a [name] listed building known as “[address], Barn” (Ref: 1244614) (the LB), and any of the features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses.

The LB dates from the 18th century and comprises a 6-bay timber frame barn that has been extended. The historic 6-bay barn has a queen strut roof structure with jowled posts, a mix of straight and curved braces, clasped purlins and a half-hipped roof. The southern side of the barn appears to have been extended with a narrow aisle having been added. Historic maps indicate that the barn was also extended with a wing to the south prior to the 1872 ordnance survey map, with further extensions between the 1911 and 1972 ordnance survey maps. Given its form, scale and the presence of historic wide openings, it is likely to have historically been a threshing barn. It was converted to residential use in the late 1980s, with planning permission for that granted in 1989.

Given the above, I find that the special interest of the LB, insofar as it relates to this appeal, to be primarily associated with its simple, functional form, and the historic materials and structure of its roof. Together these are characteristic of its historic function as a threshing barn.

The proposal is for the removal of the wooden framed windows and doors. The existing windows to be replaced comprise double glazed, timber units. Although the existing double glazing is slimline, the spacer bars are metal and therefore relatively conspicuous. In addition, the windows include ovolo mouldings to the sub-frames, quarter round beading to the inner frame and brass coloured window furniture. Consequently, the existing windows have a somewhat domestic character.

The proposed replacement windows and doors would be deeper double glazed units than existing, resulting in greater dual reflection. However in the particular circumstances of this case and in the context of the functional appearance of the barn, I find that the proposed double glazing depth would not appear out of place or unduly modern. Moreover, the use of black spacer bars rather than plain metal would appear more discreet than existing. In addition, square mouldings are proposed in place of the existing ovolo window mouldings. This would give a less domestic, more functional appearance to the windows that would be suitable given its historic character. Simple, black handles are proposed which would appear functional and unobtrusive. Also, no trickle vents are proposed which would give a more streamlined finish.

Externally the black painted finish would blend with the black weatherboarding. Details show that the windows would be recessed from the weatherboarding which would also help to minimise the prominence of the windows from outside the building. As the existing windows to be replaced are relatively modern in the context of this building, I find that the proposal would not reduce the ability to appreciate how the building has evolved over time, nor would it amount to a harmful loss of historic fabric. Information on the extent to which the existing windows are beyond repair is limited. However, further detail is not required in this instance as the proposed works are acceptable in any event, for the reasons given.

Accordingly, I consider that the proposal would not materially harm the special interest of the LB. Instead, it would preserve the LB and any features of interest and would not harm the asset’s significance. This would satisfy the requirements of the Act and paragraph 210(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework). Insofar as relevant it would also comply with saved Policy GEN1 of the Hart Local Plan (Replacement) 1996-2006 and Policy NBE8 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy & Sites) 2032 which amongst other matters, seek to protect the historic environment.

The Council suggested conditions in the event of the appeal being allowed and I have had regard to these, bearing in mind the relevant provisions of the Framework, Planning Practice Guidance and statute. In addition to the standard time-limit condition, a condition is necessary to require that all window spacer bars are black to ensure that the proposal achieves a suitable appearance that does not detract from the special interest of the LB. A condition is also necessary to require that any damage caused to the building during the carrying out of the works is made good. The wording of this condition has been amended slightly to make it more precise by requiring a scheme for repair to first have been approved by the Council.

A condition listing the approved plans is not imposed because the listed building consent is for the works and plans as approved. Also, there is no provision for a minor material amendment to a listed building consent. As such, a plans condition is not necessary. The Council’s proposed condition 3 requiring large scale plans is not necessary as sufficient details, including plans at scale 1:10, have already been provided. In addition, proposed condition 4 requiring a method statement is not considered necessary given the nature of the proposals involving replacement of existing, relatively modern windows. The Council also proposed a condition requiring the retention of hidden historic features if revealed during the proposed works. This is also considered not necessary given the limited scope of the works. These suggested conditions are therefore not imposed.

For the above reasons and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.