Appeal 6001806

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal property, [site address] , is a [name] listed building referred to on the National Heritage List for England as: ‘ [site address] , attached cottage and outbuilding’1. I have therefore had special regard to section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

Listed building appeals are not subject to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, so they do not need to be determined in accordance with the development plan. This is further confirmed by the lack of a requirement in section 16(2) of the Act to have regard to the development plan. Therefore, while the Council has cited policy L3 of the Peak District National Park Core Strategy Development Plan Document (CS), adopted October 2011 and policies DMC5, DMC7 and DMC10 of the Peak District National Park Development [name] (DMP), adopted May 2019, in its decision notice, and I have taken them into account insofar as they are material, they have not been decisive in my decision.

The proposal relates to a scheme for remedial works to [site address] , including reinstating a chimney and flue and the conversion of a stables into living accommodation, approved by listed building consent NP/DDD/0821/090626 (the 1 [name]: 1311528 original consent). The original consent includes condition no.2 requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with approved plans. The current proposal seeks a variation of the approved plans to amend the treatment of the floor of the stables. The stables comprise a building attached to the main dwelling that was previously used to accommodate animals and is referred to as the ‘outbuilding’ in the list entry. For clarity, in my decision, I have used the word stables to describe the outbuilding since it was used in the original consent referred to in the banner heading above.

The appellant’s Design and [name] submitted with the application refers to other plans that are not related to the proposed floor treatment, some of which have been submitted with the appeal. These include drawing no.126 which relates to a replacement window in the stables and drawing no.203 which provides details of the proposed ceiling structure as well as flooring treatment. The Council claim that these plans have been previously submitted and not approved. No mention is made of windows or ceiling in the description of the application. Neither the appeal form nor the appellant’s statement refer to matters other than the proposed floor treatment, save for a brief mention that these plans were included as part of the application, but not whether they were included as part of the appeal. Consequently, and for the avoidance of doubt, my decision relates to the plans and details provided in relation to the proposed treatment of the floor of the stables only. I am satisfied that no party will be prejudiced by my determining the appeal on this basis.

In light of the above, the main issue in this appeal is whether varying condition no.2 would preserve the [name] listed building, [site address] , attached cottage and outbuilding, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

The stables subject of the appeal is a building attached to the main residential property of [site address] and forms part of the listed building. The main house, cottage including cart shed, and stables are all two-storey and constructed of coursed stone with a stone-slate roof. Together, they comprise an irregular-shaped plan form. The list entry states that the buildings were formerly an inn and the building dates from the early 19th century.

Although [site address] now encompasses the cottage, cart shed, and the stables as a single residential property, notwithstanding how the accommodation is currently organised, the appreciation of the listed building requires consideration of the entire range, as each constituent part reflects the building’s evolution and function.

From the evidence before me, the special interest and significance of the listed building are mainly derived from its architectural and historic interests in illustrating a complete arrangement of vernacular structures associated with a modest-sized rural establishment. Important contributors in these respects, are its use of traditional methods of construction and materials; surviving historic fabric; and restrained but pleasing vernacular form and style, including key features and detailing.

Pertinent to the appeal, the floor of the stables is key feature of the building. While the interior of the building is not described in the list entry, that does not mean it is lacking in historical significance. The stone flags and setts, together with the carved stone drainage channel within the floor provide physical evidence of the historic functional use of the stables as a building to accommodate animals. Although the floor does not have the fine detailing and craftsmanship as other parts of the listed building, this does not necessarily equate to lower levels of importance when understanding the support provided by such ancillary buildings within the group. The traditional form, materials and appearance of the floor contribute to the building’s heritage merit in a positive and meaningful way. Proposals and the effect of varying condition no.2

The proposed works seek to amend the design of the floor within the stables from that approved by the original consent. The approved design involved the lifting of the existing stone floor and relaying upon a new breathable sub-base, incorporating a damp and radon-proof barrier in order that the building could be used for living accommodation. The appellant argues that the stone flags and setts covering approximately half the floor area would be unsuitable for re-use safely as a floor intended for living accommodation as they would not be level, would include gaps, and would present a safety hazard.

In order to create a level floor for walking upon, it is proposed to carefully record and retain the existing stone floor in-situ, cover with a damp-proof and radon-proof membrane, then cover with a thin layer of screed and finally, lay a new wood floor over the screed.

Evidence suggests that the Council, subject to further details required by condition no.20 of the original consent, agreed to the removal and relaying of the historic floor on the basis that it was, on balance, necessary to facilitate residential use of the space without significant harmful effects on the historic character of the building. Although the stone floor would not remain ‘in-situ’, it would be visible and its historic function would remain legible. The use of local material, together with the construction of the floor, characterised by varied sized stone flags and setts and a roughly central drainage channel, are key elements of the historic fabric of the stables that provide a visible understanding and appreciation of its historic use. While the approved design of the floor would be unlikely to be completely flat, it is an accepted premise as set out in Historic England guidance that when a listed building is adapted for new use, its form and features may impose constraints2.

In contrast, rather than maintaining the visibility of the floor, the proposed works would result in its entire concealment. This would seriously diminish the stables’ legibility as a functional and ancillary part of the listed building. Moreover, whilst the proposed works may theoretically be reversible, given that screed, layers of membranes, underfloor heating, and a wooden floor are all proposed to be laid over the stone floor, the prospect that it would be fully reversed is unlikely. Neither is there any evidence before me to demonstrate that its removal would not cause harm to historic fabric. 2 Historic England, [name] to Heritage Assets – Historic England Advice Note 2, December 2025

I acknowledge that a radon-proof membrane is required in the event the stables are used for living accommodation. Nevertheless, no detailed specifications have been provided in relation to the damp-proofing qualities of the proposed membranes and screed that would lay on top of the stone floor, or of the effect of the proposed design on the surrounding masonry walls, even if a similar arrangement has been used in the main house.

The omissions regarding the detail of physical interventions and alterations are a deficiency and restrict a full understanding of the proposal and its effects. As such I cannot be certain, on the basis of the appeal statement alone, that the proposed works would preserve historic fabric or avoid harm to the structural integrity of the stables. Any negative effect on structural integrity would fail to conserve the heritage asset to the detriment of its special interest and significance. In this regard, notwithstanding the information set out within the submissions, I find that there is not the appropriate level of detail before me to provide the clear and convincing justification for the proposed works. This adds to my concerns regarding the effect on the listed building.

I acknowledge that the listed building has been altered over time, including the conversion of the first floor above the stables to living accommodation3 and that a timber floor is traditional in some historic buildings. However, given the historic use of the building was for the keeping of animals, or other low-status ancillary use, it did not and would be unlikely to incorporate a timber floor. Consequently, the introduction of timber flooring within it would disrupt the established hierarchy of the listed building group, undermining its subordinate and functional character, thus weakening the authenticity and thus the significance of the heritage asset.

I therefore find that the proposed works would have a harmfully erosive effect on the architectural and historic special interest of the listed building. As designated heritage assets, listed buildings are an irreplaceable resource and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is clear that they should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, which I have found not to be the case with the appeal before me.

Drawing the above together, I find that condition no.2 is necessary to preserve the [name] listed building because the proposed works to vary condition no.2 would fail to preserve the special interest of the [name] listed building. As a result, the expectations of the Act would not be met and the proposal would harm the significance of this designated heritage asset.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework sets out, when considering the impact of a proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Any harm should require clear and convincing justification, and the magnitude of any harm should be assessed. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) requires the category of harm to be explicitly identified and the extent of harm within that category to be articulated 4. In this instance, the harm caused to the listed building by varying condition no.2 as proposed would be ‘less than substantial’ and at the lower end of that scale of harm. Nevertheless, any harm is of considerable importance and weight. 3 [name]: NP/DDD/0609/0461 and NP/DDD/0409/0314, approved 29 July 2009 4 Paragraph: 018 [name]: 18a-[phone]

Under such circumstances, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, which includes securing the asset’s optimum viable use. The PPG is clear that public benefits should flow from the development or works. They should be of a nature and scale to be a benefit to the public at large and not just be a private benefit5.

It is reasonable to conclude there would be social and environmental benefits from the improvements to the housing stock within the area and economic benefits arising as a result of the construction of the proposed works. I acknowledge that houses are for living in, the needs of occupiers will change, and a functional room is important. I am also aware of the Framework’s support for the adaptation of homes to meet changing requirements. Nonetheless, from the information before me and what I saw at my site visit, there is no compelling evidence before my why, in the absence of the appeal scheme, the stables could not continue to be used for residential purposes given it already has permission to be adapted for such use. Given that similar benefits to those I refer to above would also arise in the approved scheme, I attribute them limited positive weight.

There is no substantive evidence before me which demonstrates that the proposed works are required to secure the optimum viable use of the listed building. It has an ongoing residential use that, on the basis of the information before me, would be unlikely to cease in its absence. In these respects, the clear and convincing justification for the harm to the listed building’s significance, as set out in paragraph 213 of the Framework, has not been demonstrated.

No external alterations are proposed and remaining historic features within the stables such as wall niches and low ceiling would remain. I also note there are no third party objections to the proposed works. However, these are neutral factors rather than ones that carry positive weight in favour of the works.

Overall, the benefits that would accrue from the proposed works are not sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight I attach to the harm that I have identified.

Consequently, I conclude that varying condition no.2 as proposed would not preserve the [name] listed building, [site address] , attached cottage and outbuilding, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. It would conflict with the statutory presumption set out in section 16(2) of the Act and the provisions within the Framework which seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment. Insofar as they are a material consideration, the proposed works would also conflict with policy L3 of the CS and policies DMC5, DMC7 and DMC10 of the DMP which, together and amongst other things, seek that historic assets are conserved and that proposed development or works should not result in harm to, or loss of significance of the asset.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.