Appeal 6002670

Both appeals are dismissed.

There are two appeals on this site. They relate to the planning application and listed building consent for the same scheme. To avoid duplication, I have dealt with them together, except where otherwise indicated. I have had regard to an appeal at the property for an extension in a similar location in 20251.

In Appeal A, the Council’s second reason for refusal relates to flood risk. Following the submission of further details by the appellant in the appeal statement, the Council is satisfied that this matter is now adequately addressed. Having looked at the evidence I have no reason to conclude differently. I have therefore not pursued this matter in my decision.

The appeal proposal concerns a [name] listed building. In line with sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. 1 APP/W3520/W/24/3345019, APP/W3520/Y/24/3345022 Appeal Decisions 6002670, 6002671

The main issue in both appeals is whether or not the proposal would preserve the [name] listed building and any of the features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses, and whether any harm would be caused to its significance.

The list description for [address] Farmhouse (Ref.1352445) mentions that the building dates from the 16th century with later 19th century alterations. It explains that the two-storey building is mainly timber framed and plastered with a slate roof and describes the arrangement of openings and architectural features. Notable aspects are the long and narrow plan form of the building’s historic core with a later lean-to addition running across the rear, creating a double room plan form. Also of note is the classically designed frontage, exhibiting symmetry in the design and arrangement of its features, including large sash windows and an imposing central porch. Furthermore, the front range exhibits strong verticality with its steeply pitched gabled roof and the vertical emphasis of its sash windows and porch details.

Based on the submitted evidence and my visit, I consider that the significance of the building, in relation to these appeals, mainly derives from the building’s age, form, function and its architecture. It is a good example of a farmhouse of its period, and its architectural features, plan form and the legibility of its phasing contribute to that significance. The building is openly viewed from its surrounding garden and is seen from the road. These open views allow the significance of the building to be experienced and appreciated.

The proposed single storey extension would replace a relatively modern conservatory on the side of the building. It would be a flat-roofed, brick structure which would be slightly wider than the conservatory and would extend beyond the front gable to cover over most of the existing lean-to rear addition. It is described as a formal orangery in style, and its overall height would roughly equate to the ridge height of the existing conservatory. The extension would have a single window to the frontage, similar to the design and size of the other sash windows, and the side elevation, facing the garden, would be mostly glazed. The existing doorway in the rear lean-to would be enlarged slightly.

Whilst the replacement of the conservatory does not appear contentious given its age and limited contribution to the building’s significance, it has some positive attributes; it sits neatly within the gable of the front building range; its pitched roof reflects traditional forms and limits the massing of the structure, and the amount of glazing gives it a high degree of transparency. The conservatory may obscure some views of the whole gable but, taking account of the building’s legibility and proportion, I consider that it is an appropriate addition of its period, and does not detract from the building’s significance.

The proposed replacement structure would have few of the positive features of the existing conservatory. The high walling and flat roof, combined with the extension running across both the front range and the later rear addition, would result in a structure which would read as a large, boxy and dominant addition. That massing would be more apparent given the horizontal expanse of glazing facing the garden. The large, glazed opening would also significantly contrast with the solid to void Appeal Decisions 6002670, 6002671 ratio of openings to walling on the main elevations of the building. The extension would considerably disrupt and mask the existing proportions and vertical divisions of the building, so clearly appreciated on the eastern side, and would therefore harm the appreciation of its historic phasing and legibility.

Whilst the contemporary design and use of some modern materials would make the extension appear distinct, in this case, this design solution would exacerbate the inappropriateness of the appeal proposal. Overall, therefore, it would make little reference to the existing building in terms of its form or massing and would look decidedly incongruous and out of place.

The proposed extension would be very visible from within the open garden setting and from the road. Even if screening was increased so that it could not be seen from the road, listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of whether public views are available.

Considering the above, I find that the proposal would fail to preserve the [name] listed building and any of the features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses, and harm would be caused to its significance. Therefore, the expectations of the Act are not met. Paragraph 212 of the Framework advises that when considering the impact of proposals on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The Framework goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of those assets and any such harm should have a clear and convincing justification. I find the harm in the context of the significance of the heritage asset to be a moderate level of less than substantial harm in this instance. This commands considerable importance and weight and is not to be treated as a less than substantial objection. The Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing the building’s optimal viable use.

Whilst the additional accommodation provided by the extension would clearly be beneficial to the appellant’s living conditions, I regard this as a private rather than a public benefit. Moreover, I have been given no evidence that the continued viable use of the listed building as a residential dwelling or its maintenance is dependent on the proposal, as the building has an ongoing residential use that would not cease in its absence.

It is suggested that the proposed extension would be of good quality and use sympathetic materials. These are matters expected of any development proposal. There would be small economic benefits during construction and limited benefits from improving the range of housing on offer, matters attracting minimal weight. Energy efficiency and mitigating against climate change could reasonably be considered a public benefit. However, it has not been adequately demonstrated that such an improvement could not be achieved through alternative means, thereby avoiding the harm identified to the heritage asset. As such I consider that little weight can be given to this benefit.

Given the above, I conclude that the public benefits identified would be of insufficient weight to outweigh the great weight to be given to the harm to the designated heritage asset. In addition, there is no clear and convincing justification for the harm to its significance. It therefore follows that the proposal would not comply with the Framework and would conflict with Policies LP19 and LP24 of the Appeal Decisions 6002670, 6002671 Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan, Part 1 (2023) which, along with other things, require that proposals preserve, enhance or conserve heritage assets and are of a high standard of design.

The Council references a listed building ‘Maltings immediately north west of [name] (Ref: 1032373, [name] listed) which lies near to the appeal site. The Council raises no objections to the proposal in respect to the setting of this listed building. Having considered the evidence and seen the relationship of the buildings on site, I am satisfied that there would be no harm to the special interest of this listed building through changes to its setting.

For the above reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that both appeals should be dismissed.