Appeal 6002411

The appeal is dismissed.

Although the Council’s reason for refusal includes reference to the adverse effect upon the character and appearance of the Barnsbury Conservation Area (‘the Conservation Area’), its subsequent appeal statement confirms that its concerns relate to the effect on the listed building and not the Conservation Area. As the proposed works are solely internal and do not affect the exterior of the building, I am satisfied that there would be no effect upon the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.

As the appeal relates to a listed building, I have had special regard to sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (‘the Act’).

The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve a [name] listed building, ‘Numbers 21-39 (Consecutive) and attached railings’ (Ref: 1298113) at [address], and any of the features of special architectural or historic interest it possesses.

The appeal property is one of a terrace of nineteen early 19th century three storey dwellings that comprise the overall listed building. The listed terrace reflects the early urban expansion of Islington and provides an insight of life during the late Georgian period.

The listing description notes that the buildings feature yellow and brown stock brickwork, side-hall entrance plans, original six-panelled doors with fanlights, sash windows with gauged brick arches, and full-length first-floor sashes with stucco sill bands and cast iron balconies. The replacement of the original gauged brick arches with flat concrete lintels on the appeal and other properties detracts somewhat from its visual coherence within the streetscene. Alterations have also taken place to the rear elevation of No.21 which does not reflect the historic staggered window pattern of the remainder of the building.

The interior of the appeal property (No.21) has been previously altered and refurbished. The historic plan form of No.21, including its relationship with No. 20, appears to have been different to the typical plan form of the majority of the dwellings in the terrace. Most recently, the evidence indicates that the internal structure of the house was remodelled during the late 1990’s/early 2000s as part of the rebuilding of the rear façade and its conversion from a doctor’s surgery to a house. This includes modern floor structures, plasterboard lined ceilings and walls, and modern cornices. The function of the ground floor rooms has evolved over time alongside the changing use of the building, with a kitchen now located to the rear of the hallway and staircase.

The layout has therefore evolved from the earlier room composition and contrasts with a typical layout of a Georgian terraced townhouse. However, despite the alterations, a degree of compartmentalisation of domestic plan form remains and it does provide some, albeit limited, legibility of the historic plan form of the listed building. There are no details of the plan form of the other properties within the listed terrace as a whole, but with no evidence to the contrary, it is assumed that their historic plan form remains generally intact.

Given the above, I find that the special interest of the listed building, insofar as it relates to this appeal, to be primarily associated with the remaining legibility of its historic plan form, hierarchy of spaces and the changing patterns of use.

Whilst there would be no removal of or alteration to existing historic fabric and a separate hallway would be retained, the proposed works would create a distinctly more open plan ground floor layout, that would be at odds with the traditional plan form and spatial hierarchy of the listed building as a whole. I recognise that the existing plan form at No.21 has considerably evolved from the original layout. Nevertheless, the existing layout still bears some, albeit diluted, resemblance to the more intimate and compartmentalised layout that would have originally existed within the early 19th century Georgian dwelling. Its removal would make it more difficult to understand the historic layout of the listed building. The open plan layout would further weaken the integrity of the buildings original plan, its historic room proportions and the remaining legibility of the historic room hierarchy within the listed building.

Whilst the existing side hall differs in its arrangement to the original, the existing partitions between ground floor rooms, whilst not being original features, still provides a degree of illustration of the historic hierarchy and room proportions of the building, including the small nib wall projections between the existing dining room and lounge.

I agree with the Council that this assists in understanding the building’s original plan form. Its removal would diminish the historic narrative of the building. Furthermore, the creation of a large opening would result in the loss of the original and distinctive small scale cellular layout of the building. It would result in a more ‘open plan’ layout. Part of the architectural charm and intrinsic character of the building internally is the intimate and small-scale layout.

It does not appear that there has there been an attempt to promote a design and layout that would provide an understanding as to the historic ground floor spatial plan and hierarchy of the building. Nor does it appear that opportunity has been taken to seek to re-instate elements of the former plan or interior features.

It is likely that the original floor plan of No.21 would have been different to the typical floor plans of the other terraced dwellings, due to its remodelling and changing relationship with No.20. Even so, the current proposal to provide for a largely open plan ground floor arrangement would be more at odds with the historic plan form.

The proposal would erode the remaining traces of historic legibility of this part of the listed building and its contribution to the special interest of the listed building as whole.

The appellant draws attention to the consent works carried out to the basement of the dwelling. Whilst these have changed the internal layout of that part of the building, they do not provide justification for the current proposal to the ground floor of the building.

Given all the above, I find that the proposal would fail to preserve the special interest of the listed building. Consequently, I give this harm considerable importance and weight.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) advises that when considering the impact of a proposal on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to their conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to say that any harm to, or loss of significance of a designated heritage asset through its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting, should require clear and convincing justification. Taking account of the alterations that have already taken place at the appeal property and given that the proposal would not directly affect the original historic fabric or exterior of the building, I find the harm to be less than substantial in this instance, and at the lower end of the scale of less than substantial harm. Nonetheless, this harm carries considerable importance and weight.

Under such circumstances, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. The proposal seeks to create a more useable and practical open plan layout. However, there is no evidence to indicate that the existing dwelling cannot be enjoyed in its own right or that preventing the proposed works would lead to any risk that the dwelling could become an unattractive place to live. The benefit would be a private rather than public benefit. Furthermore, 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.

Given the above, I find that no public benefits have been identified that would outweigh the harm that would be caused. I conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve the special interest of the [name] listed building. This would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and would be inconsistent with the relevant heritage aims of Policy HC1 of the London Plan 2021, Policy DH2 of the Islington Local Plan and the Framework.

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