Appeal 6001978

The appeal is allowed and listed building consent is granted for the removal and like for like replacement of part of an existing roof at [site address] , Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 25/00784/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 works hereby authorised shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers 1191/P/LP/00/SITE P1, 1191/P/LP/02/GA P1, 1191/P/LE/01 P1, 1191/P/LE/02 P1, 1191/P/LE/03 P1 and the [name] ref 1190 N0501.

Prior to their installation, details and samples of the materials to be used in the works hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The works shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and samples.

The Council’s decision notice refers to the proposal as “proposed partial replacement roof covering”, which differs from the appellant’s description in the application and appeal forms. In the absence of any clear reason why the description was changed by the Council, I have used the appellant’s description in the banner heading and formal decision above.

There appears to have been a linked application for planning permission for the same proposal (ref 25/00783/FUL). However, only the listed building consent decision has been appealed. It is unclear what elements of the proposal require planning permission as well as listed building consent, but this is a matter for the appellant and the Council to address separately.

The decision notice refers to Sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the 1990 Act). However, while Section 16 relates to listed building consent, Section 66 only applies to planning permission. Therefore, I have just applied Section 16 to my decision and not Section 66 too.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed works on the special interest and significance of the [name] listed building known as The Swan Public House1.

[address] is in the centre of [site address] and dates from the early to mid-17th century. The oldest part of the building is single storey with living accommodation in the attic above. It has a timber frame with external and internal plasterwork and open hearths between principal ground floor rooms. The ridge and pantile roof is 20th century according to the list description and contains three dormers with timber casement windows on the front elevation and two rooflights at the rear. There is a two storey 19th century extension with slate roof to one side, and a single storey 20th century extension with concrete tiled roof to the other side. To the rear is a 20th century single storey rear extension with a flat felted roof.

The special interest and significance of the listed building is greatly informed by its many architectural features along with its use as a rural public house that continues to operate in the village. It is an attractive part of the local area, with the building set back from the road and visible from the beer garden to the rear.

The ridge and pantile roof has evidently replaced an earlier roof, perhaps one that was thatched or tiled, and so has less architectural interest than some of the building’s other features. It is in poor repair, with damaged and patched up tiles visible on both front and rear elevations. There are areas within the attic where water has leaked directly from the roof and around the dormers. Thus, the ridge and pantile roof makes little positive contribution to the special interest or significance of the listed building due to its tired appearance and poor condition.

While a large part of the listed building’s overall roof would be removed and potentially replaced, the proposed works would seek to reclaim and reuse existing tiles where feasible and would use tiles to match existing. Necessary repairs would be carried out to the roof structure, before the installation of a membrane and treated softwood battens to provide weatherproofing and support for the replacement roof. Lead flashings and lime-based mortar along the roof verges would also be used. The above is set out in the construction method statement.

Subject to the use of appropriate materials, which can be secured by condition, the proposed works would improve the appearance of the listed building and aid its conservation by preventing further water ingress. This would safeguard its special interest and significance. Public benefits are only required to be demonstrated in cases where harm to significance would be caused. Nevertheless, the proposed works would result in heritage benefits which would enable the building’s continued use as a public house and would help to sustain its significance.

The Council criticises the lack of an internal inspection report with photographs and annotated plans showing the location of leaks or any list of defects and problems. However, it is clear from the evidence before me, including the heritage impact assessment and my site visit, that there are areas of water ingress which indicate the existing roof is failing. The full extent of defects is unlikely to become apparent until the roof is stripped back and properly investigated. To insist on 1 List entry number 1130117 further details at this stage is not proportionate and risks delaying necessary repairs and improvements to this listed building. Thus, I am satisfied that adequate information and justification have been provided for the proposed works.

Alleged difficulties in negotiations between the appellant and the Council and the consistency of information required for similar listed building proposals in the district are matters for the parties to discuss outside of the appeal process. They do not affect my overall findings on this appeal.

In conclusion, the proposed works would preserve the special interest of the listed building in accordance with Section 16 of the 1990 Act. They would also avoid harm to its significance, in accordance with paragraphs 207, 212 and 213 of the National Planning Policy Framework, and Policy LP34 of Huntingdonshire’s Local Plan to 2036 which, amongst other things, seek the submission of proportionate details and clear justification for any proposals.

The Council did not include suggested conditions with their appeal documents, despite this being a requirement in the Procedural Guide for Planning Appeals in England. The Council then missed two deadlines set by the Planning Inspectorate and so has not provided any conditions. I have therefore imposed standard conditions on this appeal in the absence of any specific wording from the Council.

Conditions setting out the time limit for commencement and the approved drawings and documents are necessary for clarity and compliance. A condition requiring details and samples of the materials to be used in the works prior to their installation is also necessary to safeguard the special interest of the listed building.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.