Appeal 6002576

The appeal is dismissed.

There is dispute between the parties as to whether the appeal property is a curtilage listed building. There is limited evidence before me either way. In the first instance therefore I have considered the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building. I note there is also no associated appeal regarding any application for listed building consent.

A similar proposal was refused planning permission by the Council in April 20201 on grounds similar to those before me now. A subsequent appeal was dismissed2.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and on the setting and significance of the [name] a grade II listed building.

The Chequers Inn and attached outbuildings is a grade II listed building constructed in the mid eighteenth century with later additions constructed from coursed rubble and rendered gritstone with a stone slate roof. It has three distinct sections, which are predominantly two storeys with the range to the south being lower than the rest. A small single story range lies to the north of the pub, but all are attached and those to the north and south of the pub listed for group value only. The appellant states that the buildings were original constructed as a range of early mine worker’s cottages built by the Duke of Rutland for his workers and converted to a public house with outbuildings at a later stage. The Council 1 NP/DDD/0420/0348 2 APP/M9496/D/20/3258914. provides no substantive evidence to dispute this. The significance of the building lies within its surviving architectural and historic interest demonstrating the evolution of domestic architecture in the area. In addition its historic interest in relation to the use as a public house with ancillary accommodation is important.

The listed building lies close to the road and is widely appreciated in the streetscene from either direction as a historic building, contributing to its significance. To the rear of the main part of the building is a landscaped steeply sloping pub garden which can be reached from a public footpath running to the rear of the listed building and the appeal site from further south.

The appeal property was once attached to the listed building also, according to the appellant, forming a mineworkers cottage. Again this is not disputed with any substantive evidence and from the historic photographs there is certainly no stable like opening which would justify its current name. An intervening building has since been demolished and replaced by a modern structure facilitating garage access to the rear of the façade. In between this and the appeal property is a gateway accessing a stone stairway leading to the rear of the property.

The appeal property is built of similar materials to the listed building, sharing its original narrow nature and is a simple two storey building set back from the road with a parking area to the south. Its location and similar simple design and materials facilitates an understanding of the scale of and domestic nature of the listed building and therefore contributes positively to its significance.

The proposal is for a relatively large two storey extension. Although it would be set in at both ends and would be of a height slightly lower than the roof, it would nevertheless extend across a significant portion of the rear elevation and be of a width only moderately less than that of the host building. Furthermore, it would introduce an additional pitched roof and gable. As a consequence, it would extend the existing building in a way that would harm its plain, traditional, simple character and appearance, dominating the rear elevation when viewed from the south and from the footpath to the east.

The harm to the character and appearance of the building would diminish its contribution to the significance of the listed building by undermining the simple cottage character structure of the building. It would dominate views from the south, where it would be visible from the road and from the footpath to the east, both eroding the relationship between it and the listed building and competing with the listed building which would harm its significance. The harm to the setting and significance of the listed building is less than substantial and at the lower end of that spectrum.

The proposed fenestration is in my view relatively simple and would not over domesticate the building. Furthermore, the reintroduction of the doorway to the front elevation would restore the historical detail, albeit the second doorway would be replaced by a window. Nevertheless, both original openings would be maintained.

I understand the building has an extant planning permission for a single storey extension for which I have sight of the plans. While this is a material consideration, the extension with consent is lower than that before me now with a simple mono-pitch roof, as well as being on a different footprint, being further set in from the southern elevation, rather than the central location of the current proposal. As a consequence, it integrates well with the building being subservient to it as well as the listed building. Therefore, I give this existing permission limited weight in my

I also had the opportunity to see the existing two storey extension to the listed building at my site visit. However, I saw that this is proportionate and subservient to the listed building to which it is attached, it being a much larger building than the appeal property. Furthermore, it is only visible from the PROW to the rear. Hence, I give this only limited weight in my decision.

In addition, the appellant directed me to other properties near to the appeal site which he considers display similarities to the proposal before me. I saw these at my site visit and would agree they have two storey rear extensions. [address] is a grade II listed building, but the other one is not. Both extensions appeared subservient to the host dwellings which are larger, more complex structures than the appeal host building. The Council advises that the doubling up of roof gables would be an appropriate way of extending higher status residential and commercial dwellings like the [name] and examples provided by the appellant, but it is not a common form of extension, even on houses, within the National Park. I would agree and therefore give the presence of these extensions limited weight in my decision.

I saw at my site visit that the existing accommodation provided by the appeal property is small and the benefit of additional accommodation would enhance the appeal of this holiday accommodation. However, both Policies RT1 and RT2 of the Peak District National Park Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2011 (the [name]) require that as well as using existing facilities, they should be enhanced which is not the case here. There is also no substantive evidence to suggest that the proposal is the only solution to providing a viable form of accommodation and that there is no other alternative that could provide the accommodation in a less harmful manner. Nevertheless, the improvement to the facility would be a benefit to which I give moderate weight. There would also be some economic benefits in the construction and to the local economy, including the adjacent public house, and the tourist economy in the area, once completed to which I also give moderate weight given the size of the accommodation. However, these benefits would not be sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight I give to the less than substantial harm to the

I understand that a particular issue for the appellant is that the Council has treated the appeal property as being curtilage listed. I accept that it is not attached to the listed building, is some distance away, is no longer in the same ownership and the listing description describes the ranges to the north and south as being included for group value. Whether or not the appeal building is part of the range included for group value only, these factors would not necessarily preclude the appeal building from being curtilage listed. The definition of a listed building includes any ancillary object or structure within the curtilage of the building, which forms part of the land and has done so since before 1st July 1948. Determining the curtilage of any building is highly case specific and based on planning judgement and as I have found harm to both the character and appearance of the appeal property and the setting of the listed building, even if I were to consider the appeal property as a curtilage listed building it would make no difference to the outcome of this appeal.

For the reasons above, I conclude that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host building and the setting and significance of the Chequers, a [name] listed building. It would therefore conflict with policies GSP3 and L3 of the [name] and policies DMC3, DMC5, DMC7 and DMH7 of the Development Management Policies Part 2 of the Local Plan for the Peak District National Park 2019 (the Local Plan). Together these require that development, respects, conserves and enhances all valued characteristics of the site and buildings, conserves the significance of historic assets and their settings and respects, protects and where possible enhances the quality and visual amenity of the landscape.

The appellant raises concerns regarding the processing of the planning application and the accuracy of statements made. [name] have made my decision based on the planning facts and evidence, together with my observations on my site visit.

Although acceptable in some respects, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole. The material considerations I outline above are not sufficient to lead to a decision other than in accordance with the plan.

Consequently, for the reasons above the appeal is dismissed.