Appeal 6001723

The appeal is dismissed. Appeal B Ref: 6001723

The appeal is dismissed.

As the proposal relates to a listed building in a conservation area, I have had special regard and paid special attention to the requirements of sections 16(2) 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) in my determination of the appeals.

The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt where Policy CP11 of the Council’s Core Strategy (the CS), refers to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). On the evidence before me at the necessary time, the floorspace of the property equated to [address] metres and has subsequently been considered by the Council to be the original dwellinghouse for the purposes of local and national planning policy. The property has been extended since but the Council calculates that the proposals would result in a cumulative increase of [address] metres equating to a 29% increase over the original floorspace. The development would not therefore exceed the Council’s 40% guideline as set out in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance and would not be disproportionate. On the evidence before me in this appeal I have no reasons to disagree. The proposal should not therefore be regarded as being inappropriate development within [site address] Belt and would not conflict with Policy CP11 of the CS or Policy DM2 of the Development Management Policies LDD (the DMP) or the Framework with regard to [site address] Belt.

In terms of any consideration of openness the proposal would not be inappropriate development. In accordance with established case law1 it should not be regarded as harmful either to openness of [site address] Belt or to the purposes of including land in [site address] Belt. Because of my findings it is also not necessary to consider whether very special circumstances exist.

Accordingly, the main issues in this appeal are: • Whether or not the proposal would preserve [site address] , a [name] listed building, and any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses. • Whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Sarratt – [site address] Conservation Area (the CA).

[site address] is a [name] listed building from c. 1840-50 ([name]: 1101572), it is a 2 storey 3 bay stuccoed brick villa with scalloped valance eaves and decorative bargeboards under a Slate roof. It has a central door and flanking ground floor shallow canted bays with casements all screened by a slender wood post veranda with a scalloped valance to a leaded roof. It contains first floor sashes in reveals with slightly cambered heads and an extruded right end stack. The cottage is slightly taller than [address] which adjoins to the left and has a more steeply pitched roof. The interior of the building was not inspected at the time of listing and is not referred to in the description.

The building has a prevailing simplicity that elegantly contrasts with its decorative features and in particular, the leaded porch canopies. It retains an aesthetic, and historic value derived from the form, scale and materials used and as repositories of past building traditions and technologies key characteristics of its period style and the wider area of Sarratt Green. It has evidential value as an example of continuous change in rural settlement built form which positively contributes to an understanding of how those traditions and buildings have evolved over time. It is an attractive house in a prominent location and its inclusion acknowledges its contribution to the wider composition of period dwellings along Sarratt Green. It is therefore also included for its wider group value. [address] Authority, R (on application of) v Epping Forest District Council & Anor (Rev 1) [2016] [name] 404.

The Council’s sole objection in both appeals is the Orangery and I agree the other works, which are also development, would be acceptable. Extending across the width of the rear gable, although that part is a later addition, the Orangery would be a significant extension and addition to the rear elevation of the building. The ridge of the proposed lantern would be just above the first floor windowsills and whilst the eaves would broadly reflect existing, its box like form and scale would obscure the rear elevation. Given the architectural interest of this property the scale of the central lantern would be a particularly unsympathetic feature protruding above the roof.

Although the materials are referred to as being ‘similar’, the Orangery would have a brickwork plinth with double glazed fenestration. This type of more formal, symmetrical architecture which would include pillars and a strong parapet would not be in keeping with the simpler architectural interest of the building. Given the rather simple fenestration of the existing building with some traditional wall to fenestration proportions still evident, reflecting former costs associated with glazing, the proposed extent of floor to eaves glazing, although matching in appearance, would appear somewhat excessive.

While the proposal would not be overly visible from the public realm, and any views of the rear are limited, listed buildings, are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of whether or not public or private views of the building can be gained. Internally the changes would result in the alteration and loss of some fabric but would be limited and the proposed junctions between the new structure and the existing building would adopt non-invasive techniques to ensure reversibility in line with Historic England Advice Note 2 (HEAN 2), which could be secured by condition.

I have found no Green Belt objection to extending the building and I acknowledge as an Orangery it is designed with a distinctive form and appearance. However, for this particular building the design would erode the appreciation and legibility of it by virtue of its appearance, introducing a false narrative to the building’s past. The design and appearance would not be appropriate and would cause harm to its historic and special architectural interest and its significance as a designated

In this case I am determining both s78 (A) and s20 (B) appeals. However, listed building consent appeals (B) are not subject to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Although such appeals do not therefore need to be determined in accordance with the plan, the relevant provisions are still capable of being material considerations.

The proposal would fail to preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building; thus, it fails to satisfy the requirements of the Act. It would also conflict with Policy CP1 of the CS, Policies DM1, DM3 of the DMP and Policies 1, 2 and 3 of the Sarratt Parish Neighbourhood Plan (the NP) insofar as they require no gradual deterioration of the built environment and preservation of the listed buildings only supporting proposals that do not adversely affect its character as a building of special architectural or historic interest both internally or externally.

In Framework terms, the harm from the proposal would be less than substantial and towards the lower end of any scale but nonetheless must be given considerable importance and weight. I return to this below.

The appeal building is a small part of the CA the significance of which is focused on and around the long village green from which the CA derives its name. Its significance is therefore mainly the aforementioned green which is surrounded by linear historic and more modern development both around and leading off from it. The appeal building and surrounding listed buildings positively contribute to this character and appearance and the significance of the CA.

Buildings are commonly of a domestic scale with a variety in the palette of materials which notably includes red brick, flint and render and under tiled roofs. I also observed a number of modern infill and other buildings along with various alterations and extensions utilising modern composite materials such as uPVC windows and cladding. Examples of more modern development are generally quite sympathetic and follow the pattern of linear development along established roads and lanes.

The Orangery would be to the rear and would have a negligible visual impact from the street but it would also harm the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building which is a small but positive contributor to the character and appearance of the CA. In this particular context, its unsympathetic appearance would also fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy DM3 of the DMP and Policies 1, 2 and 3 of the NP insofar as it would not be of a design and scale that preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the area. In Framework terms the harm would be less than substantial and towards the bottom of any scale. I return to this below.

I acknowledge the appellant’s comments given pre-application advice appears to have been given by the Council relating to a more contemporary approach. Nevertheless, the Council’s decision was ultimately to refuse planning permission and listed building consent and their behaviour has no bearing on the merits of the appeals before me. I am not bound by that earlier advice and must form my own view having visited the site and area. Having done so, none of these other considerations, on their own or in combination alter my views.

In Appeal A, the proposal would be in conflict with the plan, as a whole. As a material consideration the Framework requires a balance of public benefits against any less than substantial harm identified. The proposal would provide improvements to the current living arrangements for the appellants and their family, creating a covered and accessible area to take advantage of views of the rear garden but ultimately these would be private benefits. There would be some limited and short term benefit from the proposal and associated employment benefits. There would also be some small energy efficiency benefits. On the evidence before me the continued viable use of the cottage is not dependent on the proposal as there is nothing to suggest that the ongoing residential use would cease in its absence.

The harm with regard to the designated heritage assets would be less than substantial and towards the lower end of any scale but in this case the public benefits would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified.

In Appeal B, for the reasons given above the necessary requirements of preserving the listed building would not be met, failing to satisfy the requirements of the Act, the development plan and the Framework insofar as relevant.

Material considerations, including the Framework do not indicate that decisions should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Having regard to all other matters raised I therefore conclude that both Appeal A and Appeal B should be dismissed.