Appeal 6002080

The appeal is dismissed.

[site address] is a [name] listed building, located within the [site address] Conservation Area. As such, in reaching my decision, I have considered the statutory duties under sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 (the Act).

The main issues in this case are whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [site address] CA and whether the proposal would preserve the setting of the [name]* listed [name], and [name] listed [site address] .

[site address] is a [name] listed detached dwelling1, formerly named Dormers, listed in 1972 and consisting of a much-altered 17th century timber frame property with limewashed brick nogging. The building was originally 5 alms houses associated with [name]. [name] observed substantial extensions, particularly to the rear and side, the extensions are generally visually distinct from the historic core of the asset, and its original modest vernacular character remains legible.

Given the above, I find that the special interest of the listed building to be primarily associated with its historic and architectural interests in exemplifying a vernacular domestic property which has evolved over time. Important contributors in these regards which allude to the building’s phased development and are pertinent to the 1 [name]: 1259900 appeals are its use of traditional methods of construction and materials; surviving historic fabric and floor plan; and pleasing architectural form and design, including key features and detailing.

The setting of [site address] is made up of its large domestic garden and varied residential properties along [site address] , but also the immediately neighbouring [name]* Church of [name] and [address]. The group value of these historic structures is referred to in the listing description for the property and allows for the historic form and nature of the settlement and connection between the three buildings to be experienced. As such, this wider setting, including views which include both [site address] and the Church, contributes in a positive way to its special interest.

The existing 1960’s slightly dilapidated garage is located within the garden and immediate setting of the property. It is small and modern and does not contribute positively to the setting of the property. Nevertheless, given its scale, it is visually inconspicuous from the highway and in the wider setting.

The Church of [name] is a parish church and grade II * listed building, dating from the 12th to 15th century, and restored 1861-62 by [name]. It was listed in 1965 and is of freestone and rubble limestone construction with tile roofs. The listing description2 notes that it is a small aisleless medieval church with well-preserved tower and retains a 14th century cradle roof in the nave and 16th to 17th century benches.

Pertinent to the appeal, the Church’s setting also contributes to its heritage merit. The surrounding churchyard, with stone tombs set amongst grass and trees, gives a sense of space and provides a quiet haven to this part of the settlement. This space around the building ensures a visual separation that increases the prominence of the listed building. It provides the primary surroundings within which the building is experienced, and the space allows the building and its merit to be appreciated.

The wider setting of the adjacent [address] and [site address] opposite, as stated above, allows for the historic form and nature of this part of the settlement and relationship and connection between the three buildings to be experienced. As such, this wider setting contributes in a positive way to its special interest.

The character and appearance and therefore the special interest and significance of the [site address] CA are mainly derived from its rich variety of historic vernacular buildings that denote its evolution, centred around [name]. As a fine example of historic building, both the appeal property and church are cumulatively a key component and contribute positively to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole. 2 [name]: 1242661

The proposed outbuilding would be finished in timber cladding with a galvanised corrugated sheeting roof and timber casement windows, providing additional living accommodation and a store area.

The structure would be conspicuously larger than the existing garage. Moreover, it would be sited closer to the front boundary. This would result in it appearing prominently within the garden area of [site address] . Moreover, I observed that in walking, views of the structure from the highway over the roadside hedgerow would likely be pronounced, rather than fleeting as set out by the appellant. It would also be highly visible from the churchyard.

Even if the scale of the original core of [site address] is smaller than that intimated by the Council, this increased prominence would incongruously protrude into views of the appeal property and church, when viewed from the highway for example, and would compete with the visual importance of both buildings, harming the relationship between the two. The clearly modern building of this scale and siting would affect the authenticity of how the Church of [name] and the group value of the appeal property and church is experienced and would alter the ability to appreciate their significance.

Landscaping, such as the two additional trees proposed on the boundary, would be unlikely to entirely obscure the outbuilding from public view, and would not do so from [site address] itself. As such, it would not mitigate this harm. Similarly, traditional materials, such as the timber cladding proposed, would not mitigate for the visual impact. Whilst there may be half hipped outbuildings and the use of corrugated metal roofing visible elsewhere within the CA, this does not justify the proposal in this location.

Permission3 has been granted for the re-siting of the existing garage to a similar position as the proposed garage, if not nearer to the front boundary and church. However, given the modest scale of the existing garage, this would not have a similar visual impact as the proposal, and as such is not directly comparable in this respect. Similarly, whilst the 1841 OS map illustrates five outbuildings within garden of [site address] , it is not demonstrated that any of these structures would have a comparable visual effect as the proposed modern garage of the scale and siting proposed.

In this respect therefore, I find that the proposed development would not preserve the settings of [site address] nor the Church of [name]. In this respect, it would harm the significance of both designated heritage assets.

The above harm to significance would result in some residual harmful effect to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole and would harm its significance as a designated heritage asset.

Given the fairly localised nature of the development relative to [site address] , the Church of [name] and the CA as a whole, I find the harm to each heritage assets to be, individually and cumulatively, at a moderate level of ‘less than substantial’ but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. 3 Application references 20/02155/LB & 20/02154/HP

There are aspects of the scheme that would undoubtedly be positive and of public benefit. Heritage benefits would accrue from the removal of the existing dilapidated outbuilding. This would, of itself, sustain and enhance the setting of the listed buildings and preserve the character and appearance of the CA in which it sits.

The use of solar panels, as is indicated on the roof of the outbuilding, to help reduce carbon emissions would be both a private benefit to the appellant, and a public one, as would the provision of an EV charger. Whilst no substantive evidence has been submitted, the appellant estimates that the proposed panels would generate the equivalent of 50% of the energy use of a 4 bed UK house. Even if this is the case, as with the EV charger, it is not demonstrated why a building of this scale and siting is necessary to provide for these facilities. In terms of wider public benefit therefore, this carries modest weight in favour of the appeal.

There would be some economic benefits brought about through the investment into the property and the construction phase. Also, social benefits would be gained through improvements to the local housing stock. Given the scale of the works, these benefits would each be small.

It is set out that the proposal would enable multi generation living and informal care of parents. The Equalities Act 2010 sets out the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it. This involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a relevant protected characteristic and those who do not. Amongst other things, for the purposes of the Act protected characteristics includes age, and health/disability.

I have given the family’s personal circumstances very careful consideration and due regard. Whilst the development offers some benefits to the appellant’s family there is no compelling evidence that without this particular development family and visitors would be unable to enjoy sufficient space. As such, in this instance, this benefit carries little weight.

There is therefore no substantive evidence before me that the works are required to secure the optimum viable use of the listed building.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicates that, when considering the impact on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. On balance, in giving considerable importance and weight to the harm to the significance of this designated heritage assets, I find that this would not be outweighed by the public benefits that the proposal would generate.

Consequently, the harm identified to the significance of the designated heritage assets has not been supported by clear and convincing justification. The works therefore would conflict with the statutory presumption set out in in sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Act section and fail to satisfy the historic environment conservation and enhancement policies of the Framework. There is also conflict with policies SWDP6, SWDP21 and SWDP24 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 insofar as these collectively require development to be of a high design quality that conserve and enhance heritage assets.

The application site is located within the Cotswolds National Landscape. Given the siting of the proposal within a residential garden in the village core, the proposal would retain the wider special qualities of the National Landscape.

[name] note the amendments undertaken and further recommendations from the Council, I have based my decision upon the proposal in front of me.

I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty set out under the Equality Act 2010. The harm caused by the appeal development outweighs its benefits in terms of eliminating discrimination against persons with the protected characteristics of disability, advancing equality of opportunity for those persons and fostering good relations between them and others.

For the reasons set out above, the appeal is dismissed.