Appeal 6002039

The appeal is dismissed.

The heading above sets out those conditions identified for amendment on the application form. The principal change, and the main point of dispute, relates to condition no. 2 which lists the approved plans. The amendments to condition no’s 4, 14, 15 and 16 would be consequential as they reference specific plans. Condition no’s 8 and 9 required the submission of specific details prior to the commencement of development with reference to levels and drainage.

In determining this appeal I have had regard to section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which requires the decision maker, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

Permission was originally granted for a development of 6 dwellings on the site under reference 2019/1389/FUL, which was granted on 15th February 2023 (the 2023 permission). Following this, approval of details required by conditions 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, and 17 of the 2023 permission was given1, this included site levels. Condition 1 of the 2023 permission required the development to be begun before the 15th of February 2026.

The scheme was subsequently amended under section 73 application reference 2024/0966/FUL (the 2024 permission), which amended the roof finish to Plot 1 from thatch to tile/slate. The effect of permission granted under section 73 is a new, independent permission to carry out the same development as previously permitted subject to new or amended conditions, other than the implementation date.

At the time of my site visit Plot 1 was constructed with a tile roof finish. Plots 2 and 3 had also been constructed, and work had not yet commenced on Plot 4. This appeal scheme relates solely to Plot 4, including alterations to the dwelling’s design, scale, massing, positioning and finished floor levels.

Taking the above into account, the main issues are whether varying the conditions in the manner proposed, would be acceptable in planning terms, with regard to the effect of the amendments to Plot 4, on: • the setting of the [name] listed [address]; and • the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of 5 and [address], with regard to outlook and privacy.

Barleythorpe is a small settlement that lies on the north western periphery of Oakham. It appears visually distinct from Oakham due to its historic character and 1 2024/0744/DIS and 2024/1252/DIS. separation from the modern housing developments to the east. Barleythorpe has an estate village character, where there is a cohesive relationship between the historic estate buildings and the spaces around them, interspersed with modern development.

The appeal site is to the rear of the [name] listed building, [address] (the LB). The LB dates from circa 1872 and survives the original [name]. It is a substantial former stable block in an L-shape plan, comprising the two-storey, north-south and east-west ranges. A lower level range of former stables, extend off the east-west range. The building’s primary function was horse stabling and, I am told, accommodation for coachmen. The front elevation is significant for its formal architectural detailing, contrasting with the smaller stable block, and embellishments such as the clock and bell. It is also significant for its courtyard setting, albeit this has been somewhat disrupted by the modern garaging.

The rear elevation is significant for its solidity, simplicity and linear form, and for its proximal relationship with [name], even though the hall was rebuilt, circa

The rear elevation conversion works are generally sympathetic to its significance, by way of the small number of modest first floor windows within the two-storey range, and the subdivided courtyard gardens being largely concealed below the level of the appeal site, behind a simple boundary treatment.

The historic mapping identifies that the space between the LB and [name], including the appeal site, was formerly part of the spacious gardens of the hall. Whilst the land has changed over time and was under-utilised and unkempt, space to the rear of the LB has remained, such that the significance of the building is still appreciated from the appeal site.

Thereby, insofar as it relates to this appeal, the significance of the LB derives from its historic and architectural interest, including its rear elevation, and the manner in which it is experienced as part of the former [name].

The proposed Plot 4, comprises a substantial dwelling with three main bays. The rear elevation would feature a central, two-storey, gabled projection over a single-storey extension, first floor rooms of full height to eaves, four first floor windows and two ‘blind’ windows.

The resultant dwelling would occupy a commanding position, appearing to dominate the rear of the LB, due to its scale, massing and siting. Its formal design including the fenestration and central gable, would be discordant with the LB’s simple form. Moreover, its scale would be disproportionate to the approved Plots 5 and 6, and garage buildings that would occupy the southern half of the appeal site. As approved, the modest form of this building group, would allow more of the LB to be appreciated from within the development site. The scale of the proposed Plot 4 would harmfully jar with this. The proposed dwelling therefore, would significantly erode the setting of the LB, and would harm the building’s significance.

The approved development for Plot 4, even with the approved finished floor levels, would comprise a simpler, smaller dwelling of two main bays, and a single-storey extension set to one side. First floor rooms would be partially within the roof space, served by two modest dormers and a rooflight, thus minimising its scale and height. It would also be in proportion with the built form approved within the southern portion of the site, allowing the LB to continue to be appreciated. Thus, I consider that the approved scheme would have a less deleterious effect on the setting of the LB, in the context of a new residential use of the appeal site.

It has been put to me that the significance of the LB has been eroded by way of previous alterations. The LB was converted in the 1990s2. The work included various significant domestic alterations including roof raising and installation of dormers, as set out in the delegated report for alterations to no. 4 [address] Court3. However, no.4 is part of the single storey range of former stables extending off the east-west range. There is nothing before me to suggest that no’s 5 and [address] were similarly extensively altered, and the former stable range remains subservient to the main east-west range. In any case this does not offset the harm that I have identified.

My attention has been drawn to the position and height of [address] (no. 7), and its building line with Plot 5. These dwellings are opposite the single storey former stable range, and as such the relationship is different. Moreover [address] has no rear courtyard garden or rear windows other than rooflights, and plot 5 would have its side gable facing 2 and [address], rather than a full length, rear facing elevation. Thus, this layout is not directly comparable.

Accordingly, the proposal would not preserve the setting of the LB. I consider that the harm to its significance would be at the middle to lower end of the scale of less than substantial. This takes account of the established and approved altered setting of the rear of [address], from that of open grounds, to one of a modern residential context.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to an asset’s conservation. Therefore, the less than substantial harm to the setting of the LB, is of considerable importance and weight. Under such circumstances, the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The appellant has identified benefits of the scheme which could be deemed as public benefits. In particular, the provision of new dwellings in an accessible location, re-using redundant land, and economic benefits such as employment, local spend and taxation. However, all such benefits apply equally to the approved scheme, and there is nothing before me to indicate that the proposal would bring about a greater degree of public benefit.

As such, the public benefits would not outweigh the harm that I have identified, and the great weight attached to the conservation of heritage assets. The proposal would therefore conflict with the historic environment policies of the Framework.

Drawing all of the above threads together, I conclude that varying the conditions in the manner proposed, would result in development that would harm the setting of the grade II listed building. This would conflict with the relevant provisions of Policies CS19 and CS22 of the Core Strategy4, and Policies SP15 and SP20 of 2 F/1997/0848 and L/1997/0849. 3 2021/0416/LBA. 4 Rutland Local Development Framework, [name], Development Plan Document, adopted July 2011. the Site Allocations and Polices document5. Together, the policies require development to be sympathetic to its surroundings with particular protection afforded to listed buildings including the protection of setting, amongst other things.

The rear outlook from ground floor windows and patio doors of 5 and [address] (hereafter, no’s 5 and 6), is into their associated small, courtyard gardens and the sky above. These courtyards have a strong sense of privacy and enclosure, due to their size, boundary treatment height, and sunken position relative to the adjacent ground level of the appeal site. The space is appreciated from ground floor windows and doors of no’s 5 and 6, along with views towards the sky above, and beyond the boundary wall. These skyward views ensure that the space does not feel oppressively enclosed.

The proposed Plot 4 dwelling, due to its proportions, rear gabled projection, siting, and height, would appear as a substantial solid mass, from the ground floor windows and courtyards of no’s 5 and 6. As such it would result in the depletion of skyward views from an already enclosed space, resulting in a harmfully oppressive outlook, particularly for the occupants of no. 5 due to it being directly opposite the bulk of the proposed Plot 4. This harm would be accentuated by the number of first floor windows facing no’s 5 and 6. They would contribute to a perception of being overlooked, even with obscure glazed windows, due to the activity associated with the rooms, for example interior lighting and movement within the rooms.

There would remain views of the sky above, as shown with a 25 degree angle-line within the Appeal Statement, and which complies with the guidance rule within the Design Guidelines6. However, I am mindful that the [name] state that applying the rule ‘normally’ has the potential to achieve adequate outlook. In this particular scenario, given the already enclosed space, the rule is insufficient to demonstrate that no harmful deterioration to the quality of outlook would occur.

There would be 21 metres between first floor windows. I am satisfied that obscure glazing to the first floor bathroom and to the non-habitable dressing room would prevent direct overlooking, such that no loss of privacy would occur. However, due to the site levels and the position of windows, at this distance, occupants of the proposed bedroom 3 would be able to look across into the first floor and ground floor windows of no.6. This would erode the occupant’s privacy, regardless of the green privacy screening.

I have considered whether obscure glazing could alleviate direct loss of privacy to some extent. However, there would be knock-on implications for the living conditions of the occupiers of Plot 4 in respect of its bedroom 3, due to a lack of outlook and an increased sense of confinement within that space. Accordingly, it would not be reasonable to impose a condition to secure such details.

My attention has been drawn to the elevated position of Plot 5, and the separation distance of 16.3 metres between it, and [address]. However, that relationship is one of a rear elevation facing a gable that has a small w.c. window at first floor, and it is not shown that the ground floor windows would be 5 Rutland Local Plan, Site Allocations & Policies, Development Plan Document, adopted October 2014. 6 [name] for Rutland, Supplementary Planning Document, March 2022. overlooked. As such, a shorter separation can be tolerated in this example and as such it is not directly comparable.

The approved development for Plot 4 would have a modest span, there would be fewer windows, its roof and first floor would be set down, and the first floor windows would be one metre further back. Taking all of these factors together, the approved scheme would have a less harmful effect.

Accordingly, I conclude that varying the conditions in the manner proposed, would result in development that would harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers of 5 and [address], with regard to outlook and privacy. This would conflict with the relevant provisions of Policy CS19 of the [name], and Policy SP15 of the Site Allocations and Polices document. Amongst other things, these policies require the protection of neighbouring amenity and state that development should not cause unacceptable effects such as visual intrusion.

34 [site address] has its rear windows facing west towards the appeal site. The front windows of Plot 4 would face north, and as such, whilst the proposal would bring development closer to no. 34 in comparison to the approved scheme, direct overlooking would not occur.

34 [site address] is a grade II listed building originating from the early [postcode] with [postcode] alterations. It is significant for its historic and architectural interest, and in relation to the appeal site, it is appreciated by way of its setback position behind a high boundary wall. The proposed amended Plot 4, would be set away from this boundary, with only garaging and parking spaces within the wall’s vicinity. The building would therefore continue to be appreciated in a similar manner to the approved scheme, thus preserving its setting and its significance.

The Council is unable to demonstrate the necessary five year housing land supply (5YRHLS) in accordance with the Framework. An inability to demonstrate a 5YRHLS warrants the application of paragraph 11 d) of the Framework, which relates to the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

In this case it would mean planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies. The key policies seek to direct development to sustainable locations, make effective use of land, secure well-designed places and provide affordable homes, either individually or in combination.

I am mindful of the contribution the dwelling would make to the County’s housing supply and the associated economic benefits. However this applies equally to the approved scheme, and as such I attribute limited weight to these factors.

Against this is the harm to the setting of the heritage asset which would not be outweighed by public benefits, and the harmful effects on the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. Paragraph 135 of the Framework is clear that development should add to the overall quality of an area and should be sympathetic to local character and history including the surrounding built environment. Paragraph 129 of the Framework supports efficient use of land taking into account the desirability of maintaining an area’s prevailing character and setting, and the importance of securing well-designed, attractive places. In this case I give the identified harm substantial weight, taking account of key policies. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.