Appeal 6002176

The appeal is dismissed.

As the site is in a conservation area and relates to planning permission at a listed building, I have had special regard to sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act).

The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve the [name] listed building known as ‘ [site address] ’ (Ref 1339840) and any of the features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses.

[site address] is an early 19th century 2 storey property. It has a red tile roof and render walls. It has casement windows, many of which are single glazed. To the rear there is a 2-storey late 20th century extension with tile hung first floor walls. While more modern and having altered the plan form of the historic core, the materials and appearance of it are indicative of the building’s historic origins and it has single glazed, narrow framed windows. There is also a more recent conservatory leading from the rear extension which while having double glazed windows and doors, these are relatively narrow in terms of the glazing and the frames.

Windows on the rear extension are modern. Nonetheless, their proportions and design, as well as single glazing means their appearance is reserved. They do not detract from the historic elements of the building or draw the eye. The conservatory is an obviously modern feature. However, the thin frames and double-glazing limits its distraction from the remainder of the property.

Given the above, I find that the special interest of the listed building, insofar as it relates to this appeal, is primarily associated with it being an example of historic domestic architecture and how it has been adapted while retaining the prominence of the remaining historic architectural detailing and form.

There is no dispute over the replacement of the windows and conservatory subject to the replacements being of a suitable design, as they are modern elements of the building. The use of timber and monkey tail features reflect aspects of the more historic windows at the property as would the colour. Moreover, no historic fabric would be lost.

Nevertheless, from the evidence and my observations on site, the frames of the new windows would have a thicker profile and look clearly modern. They would have a far bulkier appearance even with flush frames. Though they may be more durable, they would lack authenticity, be distracting and draw the eye. This would detract from the historic appearance of this part of the building which is currently generally sympathetic to the historic core.

The proposed replacement conservatory would be the same scale as the existing one and use the existing base walls. The proposed windows would also have glazing bars reflecting the traditional ones at the building. The solar controlled glass is said to be clear and therefore would not affect the appearance or reflectivity of the conservatory.

However, standard double glazing is proposed, and from the information before me, would be of greater depth than the existing conservatory and with thicker frames. While there may be greater costs and less durability and thermal benefits from slimline double glazing, it has not been demonstrated that this is unviable or unsuitable in this instance. From the evidence presented, the proposed conservatory glazing would have a heavier frame, greater depth and additional reflection.

As the replacements are on a more modern part of the building, and due to the appearance of the existing windows, the absence of puttying in would not be harmful. Nonetheless, the replacement windows and conservatory would be noticeably new and have a more obviously bulky modern character than the existing ones. This would erode the traditional architecture of this building. The bulk of the frames and glazing would stand out and be jarring features drawing attention away from the attractive traditional architecture of the historic core of the building.

There would be very limited public views of the proposed development and the difference in the windows would not be obvious from distant or public views. However, while not on the historic part of the building they would be experienced with it in some views. In any event, listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of whether or not public views of the building can be gained.

Considering the appellant’s clear preference for windows of the type proposed, imposing conditions to require details of the windows would not be appropriate or overcome the concerns.

Given the above, I find that the proposal would fail to preserve the special interest of the listed building. Due to the extent of the development, it would lead to harm at the lower end of less than substantial harm. Nevertheless, this would be of considerable importance and weight.

There would be public benefits from thermal and energy efficiency improvements and better control of the temperature of the room would make the space more usable. However, as this relates to one dwelling, and it has not been shown the appeal scheme is the only way of achieving these aims, these benefits only attract limited weight. The continued viable use of the appeal property as a residential dwelling is also not dependent on the proposal as the building has an ongoing residential use that would not cease in its absence. From the evidence before me, even if the effect on the value of the property were a public benefit, it would only be a small one.

Consequently, I find that the public benefits do not outweigh the harm to the designated heritage asset, the conservation of which carries great weight. As such, the proposal would fail to preserve the special historic interest of the listed building. It would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and paragraph 210 of the Framework as well as the design and heritage protection aims of Policy NBE8 of the Hart Local Plan 2032.

The appeal site is located within the [address] Conservation Area (CA). It is a primarily residential group of properties, many of which are historic, traditional ones. They generally form linear development either side of the road in a rural setting with open fields around and has a verdant streetscene.

Given the above, I find that the significance of the CA is derived, insofar as relevant to this appeal, from its historic properties, in a verdant rural village context. [site address] is an example of one of these historic properties reflecting the materials and appearance of the CA. As such, it contributes positively to the significance of it.

The adjacent building, [address], is a [name] listed building1. It was formerly a single unit with internal timber frame 1 storey property with attic accommodation and 2 storey gable to one end. It has a red tile roof and brick faced gable, with part of the walling being tile hung to ground floor cill level.

Its setting includes the open fields and other residential properties. This setting provides the context for the appreciation of the building and directly contributes to its special interest as a traditional cottage. Nevertheless, while there are shared materials and general form, there is some variation in the age and appearance of the buildings nearby. This includes alterations to the rear of the nearby properties and those of clearly modern design with a varied style of windows.

Its special interest, as far as relevant to this appeal, comes in part from its architectural appearance as an example of a vernacular cottage property. It is one of several similar cottages with traditional architectural features and materials in this part of the CA. [site address] is one of these and contributes positively to the setting.

The proposed changes are located on the elevation away from the road. The surrounding vegetation and built form mean that there would be limited views of the proposed changes from the public domain in the CA and only glimpses experienced with the adjacent listed building. The proposal would largely replicate 1 1117392 the scale and size of the conservatory, and the replacement windows would not be obviously different in wider views. The appeal property would continue to be part of the varied form in the CA and setting of the adjacent building.

Due to the extent of the changes, very limited visibility from the public and private vantage points, and the resultant effect on the CA as a whole, the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CA. The setting, insofar as it contributes to the special interest of [address] would not be harmed. This would satisfy the requirements of the Act and paragraph 210 of the Framework.

The other schemes referred to where similar windows have been allowed relate to different properties and I do not have full details of the relevant considerations. Therefore, I cannot be sure they are directly comparable to the scheme before me.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.