Appeal 6002614

The appeal is dismissed.

Section 16(2) of the Act1 states that in considering whether to grant listed building consent for any works, special regard shall be given to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Similarly, Section 72(1) states that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. It is important to emphasise that the statutory duty set out in s72(1) applies to listed building appeals even when there is no linked planning appeal.

The main issues in this appeal are: 1) The effect of the proposed works on the significance of [name], a [name] listed building; and 2) The effect of the proposed works on the significance of the Oundle Conservation Area.

The ‘[name] was listed in 1974 and probably dates to around 1903 as evidenced by a date stone in the dormer windows. It was originally built as a post office but is now a restaurant. The building is finished in local stone and has a grand frontage that echoes the neighbouring [name]. The building has a simple neo-classical façade typical of purpose-built post offices from the era. Indeed, architectural detailing includes pilastered architrave, cornice, ashlar dressing and string courses. The mullioned windows impart a more arts and craft, 1 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 [name] style. The front door surround is particularly well detailed with a keystone round arch, reeded pilasters, a fan light and a decorative porch hood.

The architectural approach to the frontage is probably a product of it being a purpose-built post office that followed a broad template which allowed for local variation. Indeed, the neo-classical appearance reinforces the professional municipal function and may have been deliberate to allow a sense of ‘branding’. Thus, the listed building has evidential, historic, communal and aesthetic value which imparts significance and special interest.

The drawings show that the proposed retractable awning would be set below the fascia signage and above the mullioned window at ground floor level. It is unclear how this would work given the projecting porch hood. Indeed, the section drawing does not appear to show the porch hood. Notwithstanding this, the awning would span the width of the frontage and, when in use, would obscure the mullioned window and a significant portion of the front door and its surround. The awning would also have a conventional retail type character and appearance when the building does not, having been a purpose-built post office. It would therefore appear somewhat incongruous. As such, the proposal would harm the significance of the building.

The appellant suggests that the harm would, at most, be less than substantial and at the lowest end of the scale. Given the importance of the frontage to the building’s significance, the harm would be moderate. The reversibility of the proposal does not alter this finding because there is nothing to suggest it would be temporary. Indeed, the awning could endure for some time if not indefinitely. The awning would not always be out, but the boxing would result in undesirable modern clutter to a historic façade. In conclusion, the proposal would harm the special interest and significance of the listed building. In so doing it would fail to preserve it, contrary to the expectations of the Act.

The CA is focussed on the historic core of Oundle. The town is a small historic settlement with a very attractive historic centre broadly characterised by a rich mix of period buildings finished in limestone. [address] is an important component of the townscape with the war memorial providing a central focal point. Indeed, the Oundle Conservation Area Appraisal outlines the special interest of the CA as including the high-quality public realm, the historic street pattern and the local vernacular architecture. The appeal building is an important element of the street scene of [address] due to its prominent location and group value with other buildings, especially the adjoining [name]. Accordingly, the CA has evidential value as the core of a historic market town with historic laying going back centuries. The quality of the town scape also results in architectural and aesthetic value. The appeal site contributes to these values and significance.

For reasons I have already explained, the proposed works would be a cluttering and harmful intervention to the frontage of the listed building that would obscure attractive architectural features. This impact would be apparent from the street scene of [address]. It is also worth noting that small incremental changes can adversely affect a CA over time. This is particularly so given the prominent location of the appeal site and the group value and architectural coherence of the buildings in [address].

There are some examples of awnings elsewhere in the CA, including at the building next to the appeal site. However, these are generally quite isolated examples which tend to be fixed to conventional and traditional shop fronts. This is unlike the appeal scheme. As such, the harm would not be justified for this reason.

In conclusion, the proposal would result in some low-level harm to the aesthetic value and significance of the CA taken as a whole. The character or appearance of the CA would not be preserved contrary to the expectations of the Act.

The National Planning Policy Framework states that less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset should be weighed against the public benefits of a proposal. In calibrating this heritage balance, the Framework states that designated heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource that should be conserved for existing and future generations. Accordingly, great weight is given to an asset’s conservation. Conservation in this context means sustaining, and thus not harming, an assets significance. It is not an instruction to dismiss a proposal that would harm the significance of a designated heritage asset, but it establishes a strong presumption in favour of preservation, which is to do no harm. This means any harm will be a matter of considerable importance.

The appeal scheme would result in some very modest economic benefits derived from the installation of the awning and would support the use of the premises as a restaurant by providing outside seating under cover. This could aid customer comfort and access. However, there is nothing of substance before me to demonstrate the restaurant would not function adequately without the awning. The public benefits are therefore of very limited weight and nowhere near the level required to justify the identified harm and the weight I attach it. Consequently, the proposal would not have clear and convincing justification.

The Council has alleged harm to the setting of the [name], which is [name] listed, but there is nothing to suggest it consulted Historic England in arriving at this view. Moreover, considerations under s16(2) of the Act are confined to the listed building the subject of the application and its setting, as opposed to other listed buildings or their settings. In any event, given my findings above it has not been necessary to consider this matter further.

The proposal would fail to preserve the listed building and would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. Public benefits would not outweigh the harm identified. The proposal would therefore fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act, the Framework and Policies 2 and 8 pf the [name] insofar as relevant. Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal has failed.