Appeal 6002164

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character, appearance and significance of the appeal dwelling as a non-designated heritage asset.

The appeal dwelling appears on the 1843-1893 OS map as part of historic farmstead. It comprises of a one-and-half storey barn conversion and a lower single storey element. This links to a modern extension to the northern elevation, forming a L-plan. The property has modern timber windows throughout and round arched brick headers above. There is dentilled brickwork to the eaves to provide cohesion between the historic and more modern elements.

The property now appears separated from the historic farmstead, as a result of mature hedging which forms part of the site boundary. It is set in a rural location, characterised by the surrounding open countryside and agricultural buildings.

Due to the age of the appeal dwelling and its character as a modest, traditional rural building with remaining distinctive forms and features, the Council have determined that it is worthy of inclusion on the local list. I have noted the appellant’s commentary upon the evolution of the building and its traditional surrounds, and that expected to take place, however I agree that this is an appropriate designation and find that it warrants non-designated heritage asset (NDHA) status.

Paragraph 202 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) explains that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. Paragraph 216 requires that the effect of an application on the significance of a NDHA should be taken into account in determining the appeal. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect NDHAs a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

[name] acknowledge that the western elevation was historically the principal elevation, the eastern elevation is now understood as being the principal, and the front of the dwelling. This is due to the courtyard and access to the site, combined with the small entrance porch on this side of the dwelling. The separation of the appeal dwelling from the historic farmstead due to the mature hedge further cements this interpretation. Despite this separation and current domestic use, the appeal site retains its historic agricultural and rural character.

The existing extension, forming the L-plan of the existing composition, does not interfere with the legibility of the historic core of the appeal site and the original linear plan of the site can still be appreciated. However, the positioning of the proposed development would almost entirely obscure the principal elevation and visually disrupt the discernability of the building as the distinctive historic C19 agricultural structure from both its immediate setting and wider setting from the public realm.

Whilst the proposed development may represent a subservient design as it is stepped down from the ridge height of the host dwelling, the scale of the proposal would result in a significant increase in the footprint of the property when considered against its modest historic core. The resultant effect of the appeal scheme would be that of overdevelopment, and it would visually overwhelm, to the detriment of the significance of the building as a NDHA and its perception as such from the surrounding area.

The appellant has noted that the appeal dwellings status as an NDHA has not inhibited the redevelopment of the historic farmstead and buildings within its setting, including a new live/work dwelling, the residential conservation of two existing barns and a new garage. I do not have the benefit of the full details of these developments; however, I note that these developments are somewhat detached from the appeal site, and are outside what is its new, immediate setting with a degree of visual screening owing to the intervening greenery. Regardless, I have made my recommendation on the merits of the appeal before me.

I acknowledge that the proposal would include the use of a sympathetic materials palette, and could secure some biodiversity enhancement measures, however these do not overcome or outweigh the harm from the scale and orientation of the proposed development.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character, appearance, and significance of the NDHA. It would therefore conflict with [name] 6, SWPD 21 and SWDP 24 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (2016) which requires development proposals to conserve and enhance heritage assets, reflect the characteristics of a site’s appearance and function through layout and scale, and encourage the sympathetic and creative reuse and adaptation of historic buildings.

It further does not align with the guidance within the [name] Planning Document (2018) as far as it is material, which have similar objectives to the development plan policies I have referred to above. It would also not comply with the heritage conservation requirements set out in the Framework, the relevant provisions of which I have set out above.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan read as a whole and the Framework read as a whole. There are no material considerations advanced that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.