Appeal 6002139

The appeal is allowed and listed building consent is granted for remove the existing (modern) chimney breast from the kitchen, to repair and preserve the kitchen door (external), remove the modern glazed panel, rebuild it as a "stable door" and reverse the door frame so that it opens outwards at [site address] , Glastonbury [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 20250553LBC and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The works authorised by this consent shall begin no later than 3 years from the date of this consent.

Upon completion of the works authorised by this consent, any damage caused to the building in the course of carrying out the works shall be made good within 3 months, and such works of making good are to match existing original adjacent work in respect of materials, method and finished appearance.

The appeal relates to the [name] listed building known as ‘[name]. In reaching my decision, I have considered the statutory duties under section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 (the Act).

Additional information has been submitted with the appeal, including additional photographs, correspondence and an additional elevation and layout drawing. This information does not alter the proposal in any way, and all parties have had opportunity to comment. As such, there is no harm to natural justice in my consideration of this additional information.

The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve the listed building, or any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses.

The appeal property forms part of a wider [name] listed1 farmhouse dating from the 19th century. The two attached dwellings, [name] and [site address] – the appeal dwelling, were listed in 1985, and consists of a two storey building of coursed and squared rubble, with the frontage roughcast and scribed as ashlar, with a slate roof, coped verges and end brick stacks.

Given the above, I find that the special interest and significance of the listed building to be primarily associated with its historic and architectural interests as a fine illustration of early 19th century domestic vernacular architecture. Important contributors in these regards which are pertinent to the appeals are its high-quality architectural detailing, general consistency, legibility of its surviving historic core and plan-form; and group value.

Whilst the interior is not included in the list description, this does not necessarily indicate a lack of special interest or significance. However, I observed that whilst the two room (with additional side entrance addition) layout reflects the simple form of the original cottage, internally the property has been significantly modernised, whilst retaining the character of a rural cottage. The appellant refers to a major 1970-1980’s ‘make over’, and from what I observed and from what has been submitted, there is no substantive evidence before me to contradict this.

The proposed works seek to remove an existing fireplace and chimney breast in the rear kitchen area, and reverse and repair the existing rear door.

The existing chimney breast does not appeal to be historic, by virtue of the unmatched and inconsistent brick colouring and size. It is evident that some bricks, along with the heart stone have been cut with an angle-grinder. Now containing a log burner, it is also evident that there is no soot-blackening within the fireplace, which indicates that the structure was not previously used as such, at least not for a significant time.

Submitted photographs also show the joists and floor boards crossing directly over and through the chimney breast, indicating that the chimney breast post-dates the floor.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, from what I observed and from what has been submitted, the chimney breast is of limited craftmanship and contains no historic fabric. Its removal therefore would not result in harm to any historic fabric.

The submitted documents show that the fireplace would be replaced by new kitchen cabinets. A condition requiring timely progress of any works of making good that may be required after the removal of the structure would ensure that any surrounding fabric and the wider special interest of the building is preserved.

The rear kitchen door is of some age, described as likely 1970’s by the appellant. Whilst clearly repaired, by virtue of its traditional form and materials - timber with ironwork, it is sensitive to the historic agricultural/ rural vernacular character of the building and does not harm its architectural interest nor its significance as a designated heritage asset. Nevertheless, it does include an inappropriate and incongruous central window and large steel brace. The removal of this window 1 [name]:1058798 would improve the appearance of the door, and its re-hanging would ensure that the door would be in a usable condition.

Again therefore, these works would not result in the loss of any historic fabric or features that contribute positively to the building’s historic aesthetics.

I conclude therefore that the works preserve [name] and its special interest. For these reasons, the appeal scheme does not conflict with the statutory presumptions set out in sections 16(2) of the Act and satisfies the historic environment conservation and enhancement policies of the Framework. There is also no conflict with Policy DP3 of the Mendip District Local Plan (2006-2029) which, amongst other matters, require works or development to preserve and, where appropriate, enhance the significance and setting of the district’s Heritage Assets.

Given the nature of the internal works, there would be no effect on the [name] and Moors Risk Area, or any other identified area of biodiversity protection.

I have imposed a condition specifying a time-limit for certainty. Given the relatively recent age of the door, details relating to external joinery are not necessary. I have imposed a condition requiring any damage to be made good, rather than the method statement required by the Council, as the surrounding plasterwork in the kitchen is of limited historic significance.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all the other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.