Appeal 6002509

Appeal A: the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal B: the appeal is dismissed.

[site address] is a grade II listed building. As required by Sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), special regard has been paid to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

It is common ground between the main parties that the building that is the subject of the appeals is curtilage listed. The building is positioned to one end of the mill and has a close physical and functional relationship to it and to the lane, as well as being within the same ownership. Historic maps of the area show that the building existed before 1st July 1948, with it having an ancillary relationship to the mill as a cart shed and store. Having regard to Section 1(5) of the Act, the appeals building is regarded as curtilage listed.

Notwithstanding the descriptions above, which are taken from the original application form, the works would extend and convert the existing building into a one-bed dwelling to provide staff accommodation. The Council has raised no Appeal Decisions 6002482 & 6002509 objection to this aspect of the scheme, and consequently the appeals have been considered on that basis.

As set out above, there are two appeals for the property, one seeking planning permission for the extension, internal alterations and refurbishment of the building into staff accommodation, and the other seeking listed building consent for the works. Each case has been considered on its individual merits, although to avoid duplication they have been dealt with together, except where otherwise indicated.

The main issue for both appeals is whether the scheme would preserve a listed building, its setting, and any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses.

The appeals building is one of the historic outbuildings associated with [site address] , and it is positioned at the western end of the mill, near to its engine room. Now a dwelling, this former grist and tucking mill for the [name] estate dates from the early 18th and 19th centuries. As an important social and commercial building within the local community, the mill has an imposing presence in the [name] valley. The age, form and scale of the building, along with its construction from local stone, are all part of the special architectural and historic interest of this listed building. The historic function of the mill is evident in its positioning within the valley and from its management of the river. This functionality is also apparent from its associated outbuildings being concentrated near to the engine room of the mill and close to the lane. These features, along with the impact of the mill within the landscape, are all part of the significance of this listed building.

Constructed of similar materials to the mill, the appeals building is currently split into two discrete sections, one being a home office and the other being garaging and storage. Built at the turn of the 20th century, the building partly fronts the lane and has retained a modest functional appearance that reflects its relationship to the mill as a former cart shed and storage building. These features are part of the special interest of the building, as are its age, simple form and modest size, and its physical and functional relationship to the mill and to the road. The building is an integral part of the mill complex, and it makes a positive contribution to the setting and special interest of the mill.

The building would be altered and extended to provide staff accommodation. Internally the building has been subdivided with modern partitioning to create a home office with ancillary facilities, with the roof structure exposed in this area and in the garage section. The appellant’s Heritage Statement (2025) explains that the floors are concrete and that some of the walls in the garage and office have been rebuilt. Given this, the internal alterations to the existing building would not lead to an unacceptable loss of historic fabric.

The proposed pitched roof extension would be to the rear of the existing building, being symmetrically placed upon the western elevation. Despite having a hipped roof that would replicate that on the host and being constructed of similar materials, the extension would be a significant addition. The resultant size and domestic appearance of the extended building would erode the plain, functional Appeal Decisions 6002482 & 6002509 nature of the host and its subservient relationship to the mill. The extension would not be visible from the mill, but it would be evident from the gardens and also from the surrounding area, including from the public realm. The changed nature of the building and the increased intensity of domestic activity from a separate household would erode the hierarchy of subservience that is apparent.

The garage doors would be replaced with vertical cladding, and this element of the scheme would retain the legibility of the utilitarian appearance of this part of the building as a cart shed that provided convenient access to the road. The existing timber windows in the north and eastern elevations of the building would be retained, albeit there would be the loss of some stone walling and a doorway to provide new openings and windows. The concentration of the existing windows at the northern end of the building retains its simplicity of form and its functional nature, particularly as there are no windows within the garage area. However, the extended building would have numerous windows, including some that would be full height, and they would have a legible residential appearance that would be at odds with the functional nature of the building. The wide casement window within the southern elevation would have a conspicuously residential appearance, an impact that would be exaggerated by the proximity of the kitchen window, and both windows would be visible from the public realm.

Historic maps indicate the presence of an addition at the back of the building, and it was apparent from the site inspection that there is a tall rubble stone wall extending from the rear with an attached brick and stone counter. The previous Inspector (app ref: APP/Y3940/Y/25/3365947) found that a rear extension would reflect the location of historic extensions. In this case the extension would have a comparable footprint to that of the historic addition. Despite this, the residential appearance of the extension would detract from the functional simplicity of the host building.

The current scheme proposes several alterations from the previous appeal, including a reduction in footprint, a pitched roof and reduced glazing. Notwithstanding these revisions, the extension and alterations would not reflect the functional subservience of the building and its relationship to the mill, as advised in [address] Buildings: [name] for [name] (2017).

The appellant is experiencing worsening health, and the dwelling would provide staff accommodation for a couple who could undertake care and property maintenance. Due regard has been given to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act (2010). The dwelling would enable the appellant to continue to live in the mill, but the scheme would result in considerable public harm to designated heritage assets. Furthermore, the suitability of alternative accommodation both within the site and that of a smaller scale as suggested by the Council has not been explored. The public harms would outweigh the benefits in terms of eliminating discrimination against persons with protected characteristics, advancing equality of opportunity for those persons, and fostering good relations between them and others.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. In this case there would be less than substantial harm to the Appeal Decisions 6002482 & 6002509 building and the setting of the mill, albeit at the lower end of the scale of this harm, due to the extent of the works to the building, the level of modern alterations that have already occurred, and the size of the setting of the mill. These harms have to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The scheme would allow the appellant to stay in their home, and this would be a personal benefit and a moderate public benefit with regard to the PSED duties. There would also be public economic benefits arising from the construction works and from the spend of future occupiers, albeit given the size of the dwelling these benefits would be modest. There would be an ongoing use for the building, and it would be improved, including with insulation and undertaking measures to ensure that it does not experience surface water ingress. These would be public benefits, but they would be modest, and improvements to the building could take place irrespective of the scheme. The public benefits when taken either individually or cumulatively would not outweigh the harms.

For these reasons, the works would not preserve a listed building and its special interest, nor would it preserve the setting and special interest of the mill. The suggested conditions would not overcome these harms. There would therefore be conflict with the Act and with Policies 57 and 58 of the [name] (2015), and the supporting guidance in the [name] (2024). As these policies seek, amongst other things, design that draws on the local context, and that which protects, conserves and where possible enhances the historic environment, the works would fail to accord with these requirements.

The scheme would result in harm to designated heritage assets and there are no other considerations, including the requirements of the Framework, that outweigh this finding. The PSED duties would be outweighed by the considerable public harms, and it would be proportionate and necessary to dismiss the appeals. Thus, for the reasons given above and having considered all other matters raised, the appeals are dismissed.