Appeal 6002154

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal relates to a [name] listed building ‘Spinners’. In considering whether to grant listed building consent, Section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (‘the Act’) requires special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. I have considered the appeal accordingly.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed works on the special interest of the [name] listed building, Spinners.

The list entry indicates that Spinners dates to the 17th/18th Century with later alterations and additions. It is part of a loose cluster of buildings which are set within surrounding open countryside, and comprises a timber-framed and plastered cottage with a thatched roof which the list entry describes as half-hipped with two gabled dormers. A projection from part of the rear elevation has a half-hipped tiled roof which includes further dormers. At the time of my visit, there was scaffolding around the main part of the cottage following a fire which I saw had caused particular damage to the thatched roof.

Despite the fire and resulting loss of fabric, much of the cottage remains intact and while I note a modern extension and that there has been some renovation of the property, its historic form and traditional style and materials remain legible. Insofar as it relates to this appeal, I consider the special interest of the building to be primarily associated with its age and its architectural interest as a vernacular cottage sitting within the rural area. The appellant comments that when some thatch was removed, there were tiles underneath but there is no clear evidence before me indicating that the main roof historically comprised exposed tiles, nor that it has not been thatched for a significant part of its history. The thatched roof is typical of such buildings of this period and I consider it to be an important element contributing to the building’s character and its special interest.

The appeal proposes replacement of the thatched roof with roof tiles. I am in no doubt that significant repair and replacement of the existing roof would be necessary following the fire to ensure the integrity and safety of the building. The tiles are proposed to match those of the existing rear projection and may, in isolation, be generally sympathetic to the character and appearance of the locality. However, the tiled roof would not fully replicate the form of the existing roof and it would lack the texture and visual softness of thatch. There would be a substantial change to the appearance of the building, and the removal of the thatch to the main roof would result in the loss of an important element of the building’s rural vernacular character. As a consequence, I find that there would be marked harm to the architectural character and integrity of the listed building and detriment to how it is experienced and understood.

The building is not a landmark or prominent in public views, but listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest which is not dependent upon the availability of views. For the reasons above, I find that the proposal would fail to preserve the special interest of the listed building and would cause harm to its significance.

The National Planning Policy Framework (‘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. It goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting and that any such harm should have a clear and convincing justification.

The works would affect only the main roof with no alterations proposed to the rest of the building, but would nevertheless have a significant effect on its appearance. Overall, I find that the harm to the listed building would be less than substantial in the terms of the Framework, and at a moderate level. Notwithstanding that the building is not highly graded, this harm carries considerable importance and weight.

Where a proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, 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 indicates that the tiled roof is proposed to protect the property from further fire risk and to improve safety. They have drawn my attention to the lack of any nearby fire hydrant or mains water supply, and difficulties for fire services in reaching the site which is accessed via a long track. This would be exacerbated by the recent fencing of an adjacent field and pond which I understand were used by fire appliances responding to the previous fire and so which would no longer be similarly accessible. I have also noted comments from the [name] of [name] explaining the challenges experienced in sourcing water to tackle the previous fire and the resources that were involved in the incident. However, a tiled roof would not obviate the risk of fire at the property and so these constraints would remain even if the appeal were to be allowed. Moreover, while I appreciate that fire may spread faster with thatch, there are well-established methods to reduce and manage risk of fire to thatched roofs. There is further no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate the extent to which potential alternative means of sourcing water have been explored and discounted. Against this context, I am not therefore persuaded that the proposal could reasonably be described as necessary or essential to address potential fire risk.

The appellant also refers to the building being currently uninsurable and unmortgageable. However, both the Heritage Statement initially submitted with the application and the appellant’s appeal statement suggest that this is owing to the damaged roof and condition of the building. I have not been provided with any compelling evidence that the building with a restored thatched roof would remain uninsurable or unmortgageable. I therefore have no firm basis to find that the dwelling could not or would be unlikely to remain occupied and maintained in the absence of the appeal proposal, nor that dismissal of the appeal would preclude the building remaining in its optimum viable use. Accordingly, it has not been demonstrated that the ongoing residential use of the dwelling could not be supported by less imposing means than the appeal proposal.

I do not doubt that the previous fire would have had a significant effect on occupiers of the dwelling, including stress and financial and emotional effects, and I am sympathetic to the appellant’s concerns regarding a further potential fire in future and understandable wish to avoid a repeat occurrence. Nevertheless, the above factors moderate the weight that I afford to the asserted fire risk and safety improvements as a public benefit of the proposal.

There would be some economic benefits associated with the works to replace the roof, but these would be likely to be limited given the small scale of the building. It is further unclear that any benefit would be likely to be significantly greater than would result from restoration of the existing thatch roof. I therefore afford limited weight to this factor.

That the proposal would not be detrimental to neighbouring occupiers’ living conditions is a neutral factor which weighs neither for nor against the proposal.

Even taken together, I find that the public benefits of the proposal would be insufficient to outweigh the harm to the listed building resulting from the proposed replacement of the thatched roof with roof tiles which attracts considerable importance and weight, and I am not therefore satisfied that there is a clear and convincing justification for these works.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve the special interest of the [name] listed building, Spinners, and public benefits would not outweigh the harm. The proposal would be contrary to the Act and the Framework. Although not determinative, there would also be conflict with Policy LPP 57 of the Braintree District Local Plan 2013-2033 insofar as it is relevant and indicates that works to heritage assets should include the use of appropriate materials and finishes and, in the case of designated heritage assets, meet the tests in national policy.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.