Appeal 6002112

The appeal is dismissed.

As the proposal is in a conservation area and relates to a listed building I have had special regard to sections 16(2) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act).

The Council did not identify any harm in respect of the effect of the proposal on the character or appearance of Minchinhampton Conservation Area. Given the modest scale of the proposal and lack of prominence from the public realm, I see no reason to conclude otherwise and find that the character and appearance of Minchinhampton Conservation Area would be preserved.

The Council’s evidence includes details of a number of listed buildings in the vicinity of the appeal site. The Council did not identify harm to the significance of these or any of their features of special architectural or historic interest as a result of the proposal. On the evidence before me, including my own observations, I am satisfied that the proposal would preserve the significance of those assets.

The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve a [name] listed building known as “[address] including [name] and Railings, 24 and 26, [address]” (Ref: 1091080) (the LB), and any of the features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses.

The LB dates from the mid 18th century. It comprises adjoining two storey cottages of coursed rubble limestone with stone slate roofs and a single gabled dormer to the front of each house. Within the front elevation at ground floor level is a central segmental arched recess containing a well and hoist. No 24 has a two storey rear wing. The rear elevation of this is rendered and its side elevation at first floor level comprises red brick. Adjacent to this is an outshot containing the kitchen. The rear elevation of this comprises coursed rubble limestone with some alterations to this in evidence, including the insertion of breeze blocks under the kitchen window. Its footprint, along with that of the rear wing, appears consistent with that shown on the 1844-1888 1st [name] map. Although there is evidence of unsympathetic alterations to its rear elevation, the coursed rubble limestone also appears historic. The outshot therefore contributes to an understanding of the building’s historic plan form and its historic fabric.

Given the above, I find the special interest of the LB, insofar as it relates to this appeal, to be primarily derived from its illustration of 18th century cottages with later additions, in a vernacular style. Important contributions are surviving historic fabric, the legibility of its historic plan form and historic internal hierarchy of rooms.

The proposal seeks to create an opening between the kitchen and dining area, both of which currently comprise modest rooms and are accessed from the main ground floor living space. The opening would be located where there is evidence of a former window having been blocked up. The appellant’s evidence submits that this wall does not comprise an original partition or part of the 18 th century plan form. However as reasoned above, whether or not the rear wing and outshot were part of the original cottage, evidence indicates that the existing footprint of the building, including this internal wall between the kitchen and dining room, is historic.

Also, given the typically modest proportions of rooms in vernacular cottages such as this, it seems highly likely that the existing subdivision of these rooms is also historic. The kitchen floor level is lower than that of the living room and dining room. Accordingly, even with the proposed opening between the dining room and kitchen, the levels difference between the two rooms would retain a degree of separation between the two, and hence a sense of its historic floor plan and hierarchy of rooms. However, the proposed opening would lead to a harmful loss of historic fabric, requiring walling to be removed well beyond the dimensions of the blocked up opening.

The proposal also seeks to block up the existing back door and replace the dining room window with Crittall style double doors on to the rear garden. The existing back door itself is not historic but appears likely to be in the location of a historic opening from the house to the rear garden. In any event, inserting a double door onto the garden from the dining room would require the removal of part of the external wall of the rear wing. This would result in further irrevocable loss of historic fabric. It would also introduce a different glazing type, neither matching the first floor sash window above, nor the existing kitchen window, harming the architectural integrity of the rear elevation.

The appellant’s evidence suggests that the proposal would not harm the listed building because it would not be more widely visible. However, listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of whether or not public views of the building can be gained. Drawing all of the above together, I therefore find that the proposal would fail to preserve the special interest of the LB.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of those assets and that any such harm should have a clear and convincing justification.

Given the modest scope of the works, I find the harm to be at the lower end of less than substantial in this instance but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimal viable use.

The appellant is of the opinion that the proposal would be beneficial because it would remove a section of wall that interrupts the way in which the rear ground floor space can be used. In addition, that the proposal would create more usable kitchen space and would increase natural light. However, these are private benefits. Given the scale of the works and that it relates to a single house, the extent to which it would represent an improvement to local housing stock would be very limited. Moreover, the continued viable use of the appeal property as a residential dwelling is not dependent on the proposal as the building has an ongoing residential use that would not cease in its absence.

It is also submitted that the proposal would improve accessibility of the rear garden for all, regardless of physical ability. However, without substantive evidence to the contrary it appears likely that such improvements could be achieved in a way that would be less harmful to the building’s special interest. Therefore, this attracts very little weight. It is also submitted that the works are reversible, however, I am not persuaded that removal of historic fabric could be authentically reversed.

Accordingly, public benefits arising from the proposal would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm that would be caused. [name] conclude that, on balance, the proposed works would fail to preserve the special historic interest of the LB. This would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and paragraph 210(a) of the Framework. Insofar as relevant, the proposal would not accord with the requirements of Policy ES10 of the Stroud District Local Plan (November 2015), which generally seeks to protect the historic environment.

Given the above and considering all other matters raised, the appeal should be dismissed.