Appeal 6002029

For the reasons that follow, the appeal is dismissed.

The description of development as set out on the original application form made no reference to the application being retrospective. The description set out in the header above was subsequently agreed with the appellant. Suffice it to say that the development the subject of this appeal has already been carried out.

The main issue in this case relates to the effect of the extension on the character and appearance of Wombourne Conservation Area, including its effect on the setting of the adjacent grade II listed buildings ([address]/Millbrook) and buildings of special local interest (including the host property).

[address], which contains a mix of small commercial units. The appeal site comprises a currently vacant two-storey building on the [address]. The property lies at the end of a short run of similar two-storey properties known as [name], all of which, I understand, are identified as being of special local interest.1 They date from the early 1800s and are of red brick with pitched tiled roofs, with the first floors contained largely within the roof space. They all have two-storey, gable-ended brick outriggers extending to the rear, all with pitched tiled roofs over. The appeal property is adjoined to the south by the grade II listed, three-storey [address]/Millbrook to the south.

A substantial single-storey flat-roofed extension has been added at the rear of the appeal premises, increasing the ground floor retail space by more than 80%.2 The 1 The related reason for refusal only refers to the setting of the statutorily listed [address]/Millbrook and the “locally listed” appeal property. However, the officer’s report confirms that the other properties in close proximity on [address] are also “locally listed”. As such they are also heritage assets, albeit undesignated. Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires that the effect of a development on the significance of any non-designated heritage asset is to be taken in to account in determining an application. 2 On the figures in the appellant’s statement of case. extension is nearly the full width of the host property, filling a significant proportion of the rear yard. It is finished in white render, with the top of the extension almost the same height as the cills to the first floor rear facing windows.

Quite clearly, the extension lies within the setting of the buildings of special local interest and the statutorily listed [address]/Millbrook, setting embracing all of the surroundings from which any heritage asset can be experienced. In essence, if a development can be seen from, or in conjunction with any heritage asset, then there would be an impact on its setting. The key point then is how that impact would bear on the heritage significance of the asset.

[address]/Millbrook is a substantial building, three-storeys in height, of red brick with plain tiled roofs. Tall, red brick pitched roof outriggers extend to the rear. It dates from the mid to late 18th Century, built originally as a house, now in use as a house and offices.3 I saw that more recently, modest single-storey extensions have been added to the rear of the outriggers in a mix of materials – red brick and painted render. From what I saw during my site visit, it would seem that the special interest and thus heritage significance of the grade II listed buildings derives largely from their age, history, form and appearance. The heritage significance of both the “locally listed” appeal property and its neighbours to the north also derives mainly from their age, history, historic form and appearance.

Elements of setting that contribute to the significance of all these heritage assets include their relationship with the [address] and also, in the case of [address]/Millbrook, with the adjacent [address]. As the extension lies to the rear of the appeal property, one’s understanding and experience of the heritage significance of [address]/ Millbrook and the “locally listed” buildings when seen from [address], has not changed as a consequence of the development. The same can be said in terms of views from [address], where the outriggers and more recent extensions to the rear of the grade II listed buildings screen views of the extension.

However, the heritage significance of all the buildings can also be understood and appreciated in views from the rear - from [address] to the northeast and from The Fold (to the south/southeast). In those views, whilst tall metal flues at the rear of [address]/Millbrook detract slightly from the composition of the rear elevation, I saw that the red brick gable ends to the pitched roof outriggers along the rear of all these buildings, including the appeal property, are readily apparent, creating a pleasing architectural rhythm across the rear elevations that is readily appreciated. Notwithstanding the flues, those views also make a material contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

In terms of the appeal property itself, the form, scale and materials of the extension fail to respect its character and appearance, detracting from its heritage significance. Moreover, the proportions of the extension mean that it is readily apparent in views from The Fold and [address]. In those views, the large, utilitarian flat-roofed white rendered extension, which is clearly seen above close boarded boundary fencing, intrudes into views of the rear of the listed and locally listed buildings, cutting across and seen at jarring odds with the vertical rhythm of the red brick, gable-ended pitched roof outriggers. I consider there to be harm, in this regard, to one’s appreciation and understanding of the special interest and 3 Statutory list description. heritage significance of all those buildings and to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. That brings the development into conflict with Core Policy 2 and policies EQ3 and EQ11 of the [name] which together and among other things seek to protect such interests.

Photographs submitted by the appellant indicate that in the past, there may have been a single storey extension with a shallow sloping roof at the rear of the appeal premises. However, based on that photo, the structure appears to have been much more modest than that the subject of this appeal. I also saw that while parts of the single-storey extensions also at the rear of [address] /Millbrook have pitched tiled roofs, there are some elements of flat roof. However, unlike the appeal scheme, those extensions are very modest in scale in relation to the main building in each case and thus are not directly comparable to the appeal scheme, which I have considered on its own merits.

The second of the Council’s reasons for refusal refers to the loss of two damson trees within the rear yard. Whilst one is shown as being retained on the submitted plans, both have in fact been felled. No consent was sought or granted for that work, bringing the development into conflict with [name] policy EQ4, which requires that trees be protected from damage and retained, unless it can be demonstrated that removal is necessary and appropriate mitigation can be achieved. Their loss is likely to have had an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, but without further evidence, I cannot know the extent of that. Were the appeal to succeed, replacement specimens could be secured by condition.

As a consequence of its form, scale and materials, the extension causes material harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. There is also harm to the heritage significance of the [name] listed [address]/Millbrook, the “locally listed” appeal property and its “locally listed” neighbours.

In the terms of the Framework, I consider the heritage harm to the [name] listed building to be less than substantial, at the lower end of that range. Such harm is to be weighed against public benefits. I am advised, in this regard, that the extension extended the retail floor space of the property in order to ensure the longevity and viability of the unit and to provide improved toilet facilities for staff and customers. Even were I to treat that as a public (as opposed to a private) benefit sufficient to outweigh the heritage harm, less than substantial harm does not equate to a less than substantial planning objection that still needs to be weighed in the overall balance.

With regard to the harm to the heritage significance of the non-designated heritage assets that are the appeal property and its neighbours, paragraph 216 of the Framework requires that any such harm should be taken into account as part of a balanced judgement. Also to be weighed is the harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

As provided for in the Framework,4 whilst not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change, new development is, nevertheless, expected to 4 Paragraph 135c) create high quality buildings and well-designed places that are visually attractive and sympathetic to local character and history. Good design is, in general, inherently informed by its context. For the reasons set out above, I consider that the extension is neither visually attractive nor sympathetic to local character and it does not represent good design in its context. Having weighed carefully the benefits referred to, they do not outweigh the totality of the harms that I have identified.

On balance therefore, I conclude that the development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and that the appeal should not succeed.

With regard to footnote 1 above, I confirm that even had I not treated the adjacent terraced properties to the north as undesignated heritage assets, the outcome of the appeal would have been the same, given the harm that I have identified to the significance of the statutorily listed [address]/Millbrook and the “locally listed” host property, and the harm to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area more generally, which harms are not outweighed by other considerations in the overall planning balance.