Appeal 6002479

The appeal is dismissed.

I observed that some elements of the proposal have been undertaken, which appear to broadly accord with what is shown on the plans. However, as the development at the site is not in its finished state, for clarity, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, bearing in mind it would be in the Seaton Carew Conservation Area (SCCA) and adjacent to [name] listed buildings.

The appeal site accommodates an end of terrace property, set back from the road by a deep front garden. Despite some differences in appearance including ridge height and materiality, the short row of terraces are in general harmony with each other owing to the similarity of the built form which creates a sense of balance that contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

The site falls within the SCCA and there are [name] listed buildings nearby. Mindful of the statutory duty set out in sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area, and of preserving the listed buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest they possess.

From my observations and the [name] and Management Plan (2025) (the Appraisal), the significance of the SCCA, insofar as it is relevant to this case, is derived from the historic pattern of development defining how the settlement has developed over time and includes the informal layout, position and vernacular form of modest cottages associated with the settlement’s roots, including those on [name]. As part of a row of terraces on [name], the appeal site makes a positive contribution to the SCCA.

8 [name] adjoining the appeal property is a [name] listed building, included for group value with No 7. Their special interest and significance stems from their historic and architectural interest as early/mid eighteenth and nineteenth century cottages with limestone rubble and clay pantile roofs. Nos 5 and 6 is also a [name] listed building, the special interest and significance of the pair of terraced houses is derived in part from their architectural interest and their historic fabric. The settings of the listed terraces comprise the streetscape within which they are located, including the appeal site which has a visual relationship with the listed buildings. As part of the short row of terraces the appeal site makes a positive contribution to the listed buildings, even if the appeal property itself is not listed.

Irrespective of the mathematical proportion of the porch in relation to the elevation, owing to the scale and massing of the projection the proposal would be a prominent addition, unbalancing the character and appearance of the appeal property and the row of terraces. The porch’s width would ensure that the ridge is centralised as much as possible within the main elevation. Yet the bulky proportions and significant projection from the main elevation, in relation to its surroundings where there is an absence of porches, would result in the proposal being a discordant feature in the street scene.

Despite the appeal property’s set back from the road and intervening vegetation, the porch would be visible above the proposed boundary treatment on approach from [name], [address] and in either direction from [address]. In these views, the porch would stand out as being incongruous because it is not reflective of the rest of the terraces and due to its prominent form. The proposal would not be physically attached to the listed building at No 8, nor obscure views of it or the wider terrace. However, such a prominent form of development would disrupt the general harmony and rhythm of the heritage assets which are noted in the Appraisal as key buildings within Character Area 2: South of the SCCA.

I observed the use of brick in the wider surrounding area, including at the bottom of the rear extension at the appeal property, however it does not feature on the main elevation of the properties on [name]. While it would add a contrast to the cream render at the appeal property, the limited visual connection with the rest of the terrace means that it would draw the eye, exacerbating the proposal’s incongruity. A condition could be imposed to secure the use of render to match the existing property however this would not overcome the harmful scale and massing.

Porches can fall under permitted development, are commonplace on smaller period properties with narrow hallways and are not prohibited by the development plan. Nevertheless, Policy HSG11 of the Hartlepool Local Plan (2018) (HLP) requires extensions to be of a size, design and use materials that are sympathetic to the existing dwelling and surrounding area and HLP Policy QP4 requires that development positively enhances its location and setting. As explained above, that would not be the case with the appeal scheme in this sensitive historic location.

The door to the appeal property would be on the side of the porch to reduce exposure to the [name] and reduce heat loss. A tall window would be located centrally which provides a focal point, and it would not be readily discernible above the boundary treatment that it was not a door. As such this detail in itself would not be a detrimental component.

Overall, the proposal would appear out of place, detracting from the historic environment and would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the SCCA and would harm its significance as a whole. It follows that it would also not preserve the setting of the listed buildings. The proposal would not therefore meet the requirements of the Act or the provisions in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) regarding the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment.

In coming to this conclusion, I have taken into account that the SCCA is identified as a heritage asset at risk on Historic England’s register of sites that are most at risk of being lost because of neglect, decay or inappropriate development. The retention, protection and enhancement of heritage assets at risk is identified as a priority for the Council under HLP Policy HE7.

Due to the scale and nature of the proposal relative to the designated heritage assets, the degree of harm to the significance of the SCCA and the listed buildings would be less than substantial, and towards the lower end of the spectrum. Nevertheless, the Framework requires that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets, irrespective of the level of harm. Any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset should also require a clear and convincing justification and be weighed against the public benefits.

The proposal would increase the accessibility of the property as the proposed wider steps would be easier to traverse than the previous narrow steps. Even if a scheme is not permissible under permitted development because of the required height taking account of the difference of internal and external floor levels, it has not been shown that the proposal is the only way to achieve the appellant’s aim for greater accessibility and so this matter attracts limited weight.

The height of the proposed boundary treatment was reduced during the application stage and the plans show a boundary treatment of a 1 metre timber fence with a yew hedge which is not in dispute. I see no clear reason to disagree. However, this, and any other policy compliance would be a neutral matter, weighing neither for nor against the appeal scheme. The Council’s handling of the application has not affected my consideration of the planning merits of the case.

Taking the above into consideration, the sum of the public benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets that I have identified, and the considerable importance and weight this carries.

To conclude, the proposal would be unduly harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, failing to preserve the SCCA and the adjacent [name] listed buildings. It would be in conflict with [name] HE1, HE3, HE4, HE7, HSG11 and QP4 insofar as they require development within a conservation area and the setting of a listed building to be of a high quality design and conserve and/or enhance the historic environment and heritage assets at risk, weighing any less than substantial harm against the public benefits.

My above findings bring the proposal into conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.