Appeal 6002497

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

As the proposals relate to a listed building and are located in a conservation area, I have had special regard to sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (‘the Act’).

Although the Council’s officer report refers to harm to the Camden Conservation Area (‘the Conservation Area’), this is not included in the reasons for refusal set out in its formal decision notices, nor in its appeal statement. I have not therefore included it a main issue, though noting the statutory duty referred to above, I go on to consider it briefly under ‘other matters’ below.

The main issue is therefore whether the proposals would preserve a [name] listed building, known as ‘The Old Vicarage and [name], Gate and Wall’ (Ref: Appeal Decisions: 6002497 & 6002499 1322083), and any of the features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses.

The appeal property, construction of which was completed around 1871, is the former vicarage to St. [name] which was located to the north east of the site but was demolished in 1977. Both the church and the vicarage were designed by the architect [name], best known as the architect of [name]. The building has a [name] architectural style with its front and northeast flank elevations of particular significance given their rich ornamentation and decoration. A first floor extension above the porch and original wing of the building was added around 1899.

The largely unchanged rear elevation is generally plainer in detail and appearance. Nonetheless, whilst of lesser significance, it still contributes positively to the special interest of the building, including the brickwork façade, pattern of tripartite windows to three floors and ornate second floor window. The door openings in the flank wall provide access to the rear garden at both upper and lower ground floor levels. The rear garden also makes some contribution to its special interest through the historic patterns of usage of the building and its outdoor space which would have previously had a semi-public element of use in connection with the vicarage.

Given the above, I find that the special interest of the listed building, insofar as it relates to these appeals, to be primarily associated with the historic and architectural value of the building including the architecture, legibility of traditional materials, evidential value of a 19th century vicarage, historic plan form and patterns of use.

The proposed extension at lower ground floor level would be glazed, utilising a glass sliding door system, with a glazed balustrade roof terrace above at the upper ground floor level. Although of a simple contemporary design and of a fairly modest size, the glazed design of the extension would contrast with the traditional brickwork and original fenestration pattern at the rear of the building. Whilst the glazed and light weight form of the extension would allow for some visibility of the existing rear façade, including brickwork and openings, it would interfere with and materially change the appearance of the lower part of the rear facade.

Whilst the extension itself would be at lower ground floor, the additional modern glass balustrade above would compete with the existing fenestration pattern, draw attention to the extension below and undermine the contribution made by the rear elevation to the significance of the building. This would be likely to be exacerbated by the use of the balcony and the positioning of domestic paraphernalia such as tables and chairs. Although the proposals would not directly interrupt the visibility of the remaining upper floor windows, including the ornate 2nd floor Gothic window, nor the external brickwork chimney stack, the overall effect of the proposals would be at odds with and, to a moderate degree, detrimental to the legibility of the historic design and materials used in the rear elevation.

Furthermore, the proposals would include a new timber door replacing the existing centre window at lower ground level. The lower ground floor of the building would historically have been of a lower status to the upper floors of the building. The new door has been designed so as to match the style and proportions of the existing Appeal Decisions: 6002497 & 6002499 sash windows. It involves the removal of an albeit modest section of historic fabric in the form of plain brickwork below the existing window. More particularly, whilst the existing lower ground floor rear entrance door would be retained, the proposals would create a central new external access door directly from the main room of the lower ground floor into the proposed extension and garden beyond. This would materially alter the relationship of the internal space of the house with the rear garden. Notwithstanding the 2021 refurbishment works referred to by the appellant and the re-provision of steps from the upper ground floor level to the garden, this would be to the detriment of the historic circulation pattern.

Although the appellant argues that the use of a glazed elevation to modern lower ground floor additions is a widely used device, including to many listed buildings, it is necessary to consider each case on its individual details and merits. In this case, the listed building is a rather uniquely designed former vicarage and design of the proposed extension including roof terrace and balcony would result in harm to its special interests as set out above.

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

The building is located within and makes a positive contribution to the prevailing historic residential character and appearance of this part of the Conservation Area. As well as the architectural and individual historic values of the buildings within it, the significance of the Conservation Area is partly derived from the evidence it provides of the historic residential and commercial development of this part of London.

The proposals would not be visible from the public domain and would only have limited visibility from the private domain. Unlike listed buildings, the significance of the Conservation Area is dependent on how it is experienced and proposals must be judged according to their effect on it as a whole and therefore must have a moderate degree of prominence from these domains. Therefore, notwithstanding the harm to the listed building described above, given its limited visibility and prominence, the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

I note the emerging Draft Camden Local Plan which the Council states is anticipated for adoption in 2026. Neither party relies on policies within the draft plan and based on the evidence before me, it does not have any significant bearing on my findings and conclusions below.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (‘the Framework’) advises that when considering the impact of a proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to its conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to say that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. Given that the proposals affect only the lower section of the rear of the building and involve only a small loss of historic fabric, I find the harm to be less than substantial in this instance and between the lower and middle of the range of less Appeal Decisions: 6002497 & 6002499 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 proposals including, where appropriate, securing the optimum viable use of the designated heritage asset. Whilst seeking to provide for enhanced living accommodation and improved access to the rear garden, this would be a private benefit, noting that the existing dwelling already appears to provide a good standard of accommodation. The appellant suggests that the proposals would have the benefit of removing the external high ground level and therefore improving moisture control and the potential longevity of the adjacent sections of the masonry wall. Nevertheless, there is no evidence to justify how significant an issue this might be. The proposals would also provide for level access from the lower ground floor of the house. However, there is no suggestion that the continued viable use of the building for residential use is dependent on the proposals. The building has an ongoing residential use that would not cease in the absence of the proposals.

Given the above, I find that the less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset would not be outweighed by the public benefits. I conclude that the proposals 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 contrary to the heritage and design aims of Policy HC1 of the London Plan 2021, Policies D1 and D2 of the London Borough of Camden Local Plan 2017 and the Framework.

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