Appeal 6002103

This appeal is dismissed.

A combined application was made for planning permission and listed building consent. However, this appeal relates only to the Council’s subsequent decision to refuse to grant listed building consent for the proposed works.

The appeal site contains the [name] listed building known as Merrythatch 1 (the Listed Building). Consequently, in reaching my decision, I have exercised my statutory duty under section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 – as amended (the Act).

Development plan policies are not usually determinative in section 20 appeals. However, insofar as they are relevant to the proposed works and therefore capable of being material considerations, I have considered the development plan policies cited on the decision notice.

The main issue is whether the proposed works would preserve the [name] listed building - Merrythatch, or any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses.

The evidence indicates that the detached former farmhouse, now cottage, at Merrythatch, dates from the early to mid-17th Century. The main part of this Listed Building is timber-framed, with infills of brick and wattle and daub, and a thatched roof. Most of the living accommodation continues to be provided at ground and attic floor levels within the early part of the house, and much of its early multi-bay and single-depth plan form remains legible. Moreover, the generally well-preserved external walls and most of the modestly sized exterior windows and doors appear to have been largely retained and/or respected in later works. That being the case, the main part of the Listed Building retains much of its early character, vernacular form, and design detailing.

Although later single-storey extension/s have been added to the roadside end of the Listed Building, these are of a significantly lower height and scale than the main part of the building. As such, they are subordinate addition/s that do not detract from or compete with the primacy of the main historic part of the house.

For these reasons, the significance of the listed building stems mainly from its historic interest, and from the architectural interest of its remaining early historic form and fabric.

The extension would be recessed from the front wall of the house, its roof would be partially hipped, and its ridge would be lower than the main part of the Listed Building. However, its ridge would not follow that of the main part of the house, and its siting and internal layout would not reflect the linear shape and single-depth-plan form that are distinctive characteristics of the Listed Building. Moreover, the eaves of the proposed extension would appear to be significantly taller than those of the main historic part of the house, and the depth of the extension would be substantially greater than it. As such, and even though the 2-storey part of the extension would be connected to the existing house by a modest low link, it would appear as a disjointed and bulky addition that would jar with the traditional form of the early part of the house.

I accept that large and/or modern extensions to listed buildings can sometimes be undertaken without causing harm to their significance. However, in this instance, the implementation of the appeal scheme would result in the addition of a visually dominant and discordant extension to the Listed Building. In part, this is because of the large scale of the extension. It is also because of its incongruous design detailing – which includes very large, glazed openings in the front elevation, and irregularly located and proportioned windows in other elevations.

Even if the works would not harm the fabric of the early parts of the Listed Building, this is a neutral consideration.

The removal of parts of the existing extension/s would undoubtedly help to reveal the significance of the Listed Building. However, this is only a small part of the overall scheme, and the associated benefit would be lost by the subsequent construction of the larger proposed extension.

Irrespective of whether the extension would be visible from the nearby public realm, the Listed Building is safeguarded for its architectural and historic interest. Furthermore, and even though it would be easy to distinguish between the old and new parts of the house, the works would erode the integrity of the Listed Building as a whole and cause harm to its significance.

In line with paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), I give great weight to the conservation of the Listed Building.

On the basis that the early historic fabric of the building would be largely unaltered by the implementation of the appeal scheme, the harm that would be caused to its overall significance would be towards the lower end of the scale of less than substantial. Nevertheless, this finding of harm carries considerable importance and weight.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework indicates that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

Although the Listed Building does not have an upstairs bathroom, it has an internal bathroom and WC at ground floor level as well as a separate toilet and sink on the first floor. Therefore, and in these respects, it has suitable washing and toilet facilities to enable occupiers to secure adequate living conditions. While accessing the boiler and utility rooms in the existing extension via external doors may not be ideal, any inconvenience caused by this and/or the absence of an upstairs bathroom, is highly unlikely to result in the cessation of use of the Listed Building or its failure to be maintained. As such, and while the scheme would undoubtedly provide additional internal space and enhanced living conditions, these would be private rather than public benefits as set out in the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance 2.

Economic benefits would arise during the implementation of the scheme. However, I am not persuaded that the only way to secure the public benefit associated with improving the damp resistance and ventilation of the house would be via the proposed works. Moreover, and while the scheme may result in some improvement to the thermal efficiency of the house, the extent of the associated environmental benefits has not been articulated.

Therefore, and because of the modest scale of the scheme, the associated public benefits would be small, and very little weight is attributed to each of them.

Overall, the public benefits would not outweigh the harm that would be caused to the significance of the Listed Building.

For the reasons given, the scheme would not preserve the [name] listed building - Merrythatch, or any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses. Consequently, it would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the provisions of the Framework that seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment. It would also conflict with policies 57 and 58 of the Core Strategy3. Collectively, and amongst other things, these require extensions and alterations to be of a high standard of design that is complimentary to the locality, and to conserve, and where possible, enhance the historic environment. 2 Paragraph: 020 [name]: 18a-020-20190723 3 Wiltshire Council – Wiltshire Local Development Framework – [name] – adopted January 2015

Within a few hundred metres of the appeal site are the [name] listed buildings known as the Barn at [address] 4 and [address] 5. According to the associated official list entries, these are largely timber-framed structures that date from the 16th or 17th Centuries – for The Barn, and the 17th Century – for [address]. That being the case, the significance of these buildings is primarily derived from their historic and architectural interest. However, they also gain some significance from their wider agricultural setting, which includes Merrythatch - a historic farmhouse. The main parties agree that the works would preserve the settings of the Barn at [address] and Smith’s farm, and I have no reason to find otherwise. Nevertheless, and even though the significance of these designated heritage assets would be unharmed by the appeal scheme, this is a neutral consideration.

For the reasons given, and having regard to all other matters raised. I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.