Appeal 6002594

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposed development relates to the setting of listed buildings and lies within a conservation area. Accordingly, I have had regard to the statutory duties set out in sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the property and the surrounding area; and • whether the proposed development would preserve the setting of an adjacent [name] listed building at [address]; and the extent to which the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Holy Sepulchre Conservation Area.

The appeal site comprises a modern, two-storey, linear structure, with a stepped floorplate under a flat roof. It is faced in brick and has a series of projecting first floor windows along its long side elevation. Whilst located at the far end of a short cul-de-sac access road, it is clearly visible from the junction with [address] due to the intermediate sites being open and comprising only service yards and parking areas.

The access road principally services the rear of buildings fronting onto [address] which sits at a higher level. The appeal site is attached to the rear of [address], which along with its neighbours forms a row of two and three storey buildings of differing ages, styles and uses. Predominantly these buildings are faced in brickwork, under either flat or pitched roofs, with elements to their rear that step down with the landform. The appeal building therefore is characteristic of this townscape in both materiality, form and relationship to topography.

The appeal development seeks to extend the building upwards by an additional floor, roughly following the existing step in its floorplate but employing smaller windows and varying the external finish to ‘micro rib insulated cladding panels’. Due to the linear form of the host building, the long side elevation of this extension would be highly visible along this street and from [address] itself. Whilst the extension would continue the stepped form of the existing building and would not exceed building hights in the surrounding area, its forward set location and elevated position would give it great prominence. The incongruous design would be uncharacteristic of the street’s appearance and unsympathetic to the host property. Furthermore, the introduction of such a large amount of metal cladding would accentuate the elevations in a brighter and more distracting material.

On my site visit, and as highlighted by the appellant, I saw that there was an existing metal roof structure in the form of a mansard roof on a nearby office building. Whilst this does form a component of the immediate townscape, this cladding is an anomaly. Proportionally, this example forms a much smaller element to that building, principally comprising a narrow roof form, compared to that of an entire floor with windows in it, as proposed on the appeal site.

My attention has also been drawn to other examples of brick buildings with roof extensions clad in other metallic materials. Those put to me in the Planning and Heritage Statement had inset components to their design. Such modelling is absent in the appeal proposal. Moreover, the context of these examples, including their planning history, was not put before me. Ultimately, the existence of these other extensions has not led me to an alternative conclusion on this main issue.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the property and surrounding area. As such, it conflicts with Policies Q1 and Q2 of the Northamptonshire Local Plan (Part 2) (2023). These policies, in summary, require development to promote and contribute to good placemaking through high quality design and not to be overbearing on existing buildings. Heritage assets – special interest and significance

The appeal site is linked to the rear of a neighbouring building, comprising [address] ([address]), which is a grade II listed building1 (LB). It consists of a late 18th century structure with a painted ashlar (stone) elevation with sash windows towards the street. The building’s significance is primarily derived from the ordered architecture of the principal street facing elevation, along with it’s well executed detailing of materials and joinery. Also of significance is the plan form of the building, and its hierarchy of service structures, including chimneys and outrigger, which all contribute to the understanding of the functioning of this Georgian town building. These rear service areas appear to be altered and comprise later additions. Whilst not untypical, this has altered how the asset is 1 Listed Building Entry Number: 1372238 experienced and reduced, to an extent, the significance of the rear aspects of the building.

I note that the listing description only describes the [address] elevation. Listing descriptions are for identification purposes only and are not a statement of significance. Furthermore, whilst other listed buildings in the street have been redeveloped in the past with only their facades being retained, this either reflects heritage policy at that time (pre-dating the current development plan and national policy) or the particular circumstances of those heritage assets. Either way, neither the listing description nor the redevelopment of nearby LBs has led me to find no significance to the rear elevation of No 45.

Pertinent to this appeal, the building’s special interest and significance are also derived, in part, from its setting. Along with views towards its front elevation, albeit to less of an extent, the setting to the more utilitarian rear elevation remains significant and still contributes to its understanding. The presence of the existing appeal site building does not completely obscure these informal and unplanned views of its rear roof profile and chimneys which remain still very present in the townscape. Rear views of the LB are significant from both public and private land, principally along the access road on the approach from [address], from the land behind [address], and at a greater distance, along stretches of [address].

The appeal building stands within the Holy Sepulchre Conservation Area (CA), along with the buildings and land either side of it. The significance of the CA is in part derived from its early origins as part of medieval Northampton, including the nearby ancient early 12th century church, from which the CA derives its name from. The Council’s Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (CAAMP) notes of particular significance the form of [address] itself, which is of high-quality 18th and 19th century architecture. These buildings are typically two or three floors in height, connected to one another in a ribbon of development along the street, and have more utilitarian elevations with return wings, yards and gardens for servicing to the rear. These rear areas are largely modernised with hardstanding and incongruous alterations that make a limited contribution to the CA.

[address] is directly adjacent to the site and on my site visit I saw that this building has been demolished, other than for part of its gable wall towards No 45. I have no evidence before me to indicate why this building is no longer present. Whilst its absence affords views of the appeal site from [address] that were not possible prior to its loss, I afford no significance to these views through this vacant site as they are, in all likelihood, temporary and are not a permanent intervention to the townscape.

The site is on the edge of the CA and interfaces with the rear elevations of the buildings on [address]. Whilst not characteristic of the CA, the existing building, being modest in scale and sympathetic in materials, makes a neutral contribution to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole. Heritage assets – appeal proposal and effects

The proposal would extend the appeal site upwards, introducing an elevated and bulky form in close proximity to both the LB and the access road. Therefore, it would encroach upon views of the rear of the building on the approach along the access road, diminishing the ability to appreciate the significance of the LB.

I acknowledge that the proposal would be lower than the main ridge of the LB. Indeed, it would step down from the building and not be visible above the [address] elevation. Nonetheless, from the rear, the proposed development would result in the LB no longer being read in conjunction with its surrounding townscape. Moreover, the graduated massing that falls away from its principal form would be largely replaced by the elevated massing of the proposal.

The extension would completely block all but some very limited views of the LB save that of one chimney. Furthermore, there would no longer be a visual break between the site and the LB with the proposal obscuring the existing annex to the service wing. By creating a mass that is bulkier than the service wing, the proposal would diminish this separation, of which the use of contrasting cladding will draw further attention to.

The use of modern materials does not automatically lead to harm with regards to the setting of this LB. However, the excessive use of this cladding would be harmful through its expression as a grid of panels which would jar with the incongruous formation of small windows. These features would fail to respond to the setting of the LB.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would fail to preserve the setting of the adjacent [name] listed building. As such the proposed development would harm the significance of the designated heritage asset, contrary to the requirements of Section 66(1) of the Act.

The extension would be entirely out of view from [address] but would be prominent in this rear access road blocking some views of the rear elevations of individual buildings fronting [address]. Whilst large, the development would only have a limited impact on what remains of the historic townscape from this rear perspective. It is however the materiality of the extension that is particularly incongruous, being in strong contrast to the brickwork of the immediate surrounding environs of the CA

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Holy Sepulchre Conservation Area, harming the significance of the designated heritage asset, contrary to the requirements of Section 72(1) of the Act.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the NPPF) advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to their conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of those assets or from development within their setting and that this should have a clear and convincing justification. Given my findings above, and the extent of the proposed development, I find the harm to be less than substantial in this instance, and at the lower end of the spectrum. This harm is nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Under such circumstances, paragraph 215 of the NPPF advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, which includes the securing of the optimal viable use of the heritage assets.

The proposed development would represent a contribution of three dwellings to housing supply in the area. There would also be some other social and economic benefits of the proposed development, including in supporting employment during construction and the bringing of increased trade to nearby services and facilities once occupied, particularly in the town centre. Moreover, the proposed development would result in CIL and council tax receipts. However, the scale of those benefits would inevitably be limited by reason of the extent and nature of the proposed development. I therefore afford these matters limited weight.

Overall, the weight that I ascribe to the public benefits that would accrue from the proposal, is not sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight that I attach to the harm I have found. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development would fail to preserve the setting of the adjoining [name] listed building and the character or appearance of the CA. The proposed development would be contrary to the requirements of Section 66(1) and 72(1) of the Act and Policy BN5 of the West Northamptonshire Council Joint Core Strategy (Part 1) (2014) and Policies Q1 and ENV6 of the Northamptonshire Local Plan (Part 2) (2023). These policies require, amongst other matters, for development to conserve and enhance heritage assets and their settings as well as respond to historic environment characteristics.

The LB at No 45, identified in the main issues, forms part of a group of LBs which form a line of buildings along the west side of [address]. They include No 41 to No [address], as identified in the listing description. As noted above No 47 has been demolished. Nonetheless, the appeal site is within the setting of these LBs, albeit with a differing contribution to each of their settings according to proximity. Whilst the Council does not cite these buildings in their reason for refusal, I have had regard to the statutory duties set out in section 66(1) of the Act.

Together the significance of these LBs are not unlike that of No 45. They are all late 18th century town buildings of either two or three floors in height and of ashlar or stucco. Despite various alterations, their settings are principally towards [address] with varied degrees of significance to their plan form and rear service elevations depending on survival of fabric. Bearing in mind the position of the proposal, I consider that it would have a neutral effect on, and therefore would preserve, the setting of these other listed buildings. Nevertheless, the lack of harm in this respect does not weigh for or against the appeal and does not alter my conclusion on the main issue.

The Holy Sepulchre Church is a grade I LB2 and the proposal is in the setting of its spire when viewed from [address]. The churches significance derives from its 2 Listed Building Entry Number: 1052407 early origins and rare circular form. Whilst the tower is later it is still a significant aspect of the building marking out the site as a landmark from greater distances above the immediate townscape. The proposal will further limit views of the spire, decreasing its prominence along the lower sections of [address] and the access road forwards of the appeal site. These views are not significant to its setting and therefore I consider that it would have a neutral effect on, and therefore would preserve, the setting of this listed building. Nevertheless, the lack of harm in this respect does not weigh for or against the appeal and does not alter my conclusion on the main issue.

The locally listed ‘Roadmender’ club has been brought to my attention. It is located opposite the appeal site and outside of the CA. It is a modern building of very different character and considering the appeal site faces its rear elevation without blocking views towards it, the proposal, would not detract from its special character. Nevertheless, this weighs neither for nor against the scheme nor alters my conclusions on the main issues.

The appellant also sets out that there would be no harm in respect of amenity, layout, flood risk or highway safety. Nevertheless, a lack of harm is effectively neutral in my determination of the appeal.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal proposals would conflict with the development plan as a whole and that there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.