Appeal 6002788

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

Prior to the consideration of this appeal, the Council adopted the Pendle Local Plan 2025 (LP). The main parties were aware of what the emerging policies were at the time of the Council's decision, and they have not materially changed to the adopted versions. I have had regard to the most up to date development plan.

The Council raised no concern on whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and I find no reason to disagree. In so finding, it is also satisfied that the effect on the openness of the Green Belt would also be acceptable. The main issue is therefore the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, bearing in mind the special attention that should be paid to the desirability of preserving the setting of the nearby [name] listed building of [site address] Farmhouse.

The appeal relates to a two storey detached dwelling with an existing single storey rear extension. It is of a traditional, simple design with modestly sized openings. Whilst not listed, locally listed, or within a Conservation Area, it does lie within the setting of the [name] listed [site address] Farmhouse, whose significance is derived mainly from its architectural and historical interest as a 17th Century farmhouse.

This is further expressed though its age, surviving historic fabric and detail, and use of traditional materials. Its notable features include hammer dressed stone, large quoins, mullioned windows, a stone slate roof and chimneys, all features typical for a farmhouse of that period. The porch and the room it enters are additions to the original build and indicates that the farmhouse was built in two principal phases.

The adjacent properties at [address] and [address] Barn are also identified as Non-Designated Heritage Assets (NDHAs). All form part of a small cluster of buildings, which have been converted to residential use. Despite this, their agricultural origins remain evident through their close knit layout, coherent design, and consistent use of traditional materials. As such, they have notable group value as a well preserved historic farmstead.

There is little to visually separate the listed building from the appeal site, and it therefore forms an important part of its setting. The surrounding farmland further reinforces the historic and functional relationship between the listed building, the NDHAs, and the wider agricultural landscape. In these regards, the setting and group value make a positive contribution to the significance of both the listed building and the NDHAs, and to how they are experienced and understood. A Public Right of Way (PROW) also runs between the appeal building and the listed building, providing public access to the open fields beyond.

At first floor level, the proposal would introduce a substantial area of glazing on the side elevation, extending up to the apex and occupying much of the façade. It would be larger than the sliding doors proposed below, resulting in a disproportionate and visually unbalanced fenestration. Additionally, a roof-to-wall window strip is proposed at both the front and rear, where their notably contemporary design would create a vertical emphasis at upper level. As such, these glazed elements, with their reflective and smooth surfaces, would appear uncharacteristic and visually prominent. They would fail to reflect the more modest and simple openings found on the host dwelling, drawing the eye and unacceptably detracting from the more traditional and subdued exteriors seen within the group.

Stone grey larch cladding would also be introduced to the roof and walls at first floor level. Although timber is commonly used in rural contexts, its proposed use in combination with the extensive glazing, would create a striking and prominent external finish. The full timber envelope proposed at first floor would contrast sharply against the group, where muted stone walls and dark tiled roofs provide a clear and conventional distinction between roof and wall elements. The timber’s weathering over time would not sufficiently mitigate the harm, as it would continue to read as a contrasting material against the original stone exterior.

The existing boundary treatments would partially obscure some views. However, the proposal’s upper level would still present as an intrusive and overly modern intervention that would be readily visible from the PROW. The combined glazing and cladding treatments would fail to integrate with the host dwelling and the group’s established material palette and would jar against the rural landscape.

As a result, it would distract and diminish the ability to appreciate the listed building and the NDHAs and their significance as part of a cohesive, pre-industrial farmstead setting, thereby unacceptably undermining their special architectural and historic interest. This harm would be further amplified during dark hours. Any internal lighting would illuminate the extensive glazing and when the side elevation is seen with the rest of the group, it would appear far more conspicuous than the existing smaller windows, even if those were lit.

Whilst the adjacent NDHAs have a large, glazed opening, these occupy former barn doorways and successfully express an original feature. By contrast, the proposal would introduce an entirely new modern opening, where no such feature exists. The group has, bar some very limited and simple/honest changes over time, remained relatively constant. Since the early 20th Century, the appeal property has been adapted for residential use, extended on at least three occasions, and has expanded its residential curtilage. Even so, it has retained a simple appearance and remained well integrated with the farmstead group. These changes over time do not justify further alterations that would introduce a poorly designed addition and diminish the contribution the building makes to the setting of the listed building.

Timber and glazing can, in some circumstances, be used to form a unique, modern addition that sits sensitively alongside a historic building. However, for the reasons set out above, their combined use in this case would be harmful. The appellant refers to allowed appeal decisions Refs. 3323985, 3327419, 3323985 and

These are not directly comparable, as they relate either to hotel proposals or direct works to listed buildings. They are also located outside of Pendle and are therefore, not read within the same context as the appeal site. The other cited examples are also not sufficiently comparable, as they either concern an art gallery, single storey developments, or are schemes of a different design, scale, and appearance. Context is obviously important, as I have explained above.

The proposal would also fail to fully comply with section 4 of the Design Principles Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) 2009, which notes that good design should consider existing architectural detailing, such as the range of materials and how they are applied. Whilst there may be a place for the use of other materials, in this case, the proposed timber and glazing would be inappropriate, for the reasons set out above. Although the SPD was adopted in 2009, Policies DM16 and DM24 of the new adopted LP states that proposals should have regard to it.

Therefore, the appeal scheme would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area, which include the presence of two NDHAs. It would fail to preserve the setting of the [name] listed building. Additionally, it would neither conserve, nor enhance heritage assets or its setting, as specified by Policies SP11 and DM18 of the LP.

Given its localised effect, the harm in regard to the setting of the listed building would be at the lower end of less than substantial for the purposes of the Framework. Even so, I am mindful that the desirability of preserving the listed building’s setting is a matter of considerable importance and weight. In such circumstances, the harm should be weighed against the proposal’s public benefits.

The proposal would offer some benefit in generating local employment, but this would be time limited and is therefore of moderate weight. The proposal providing a better quality home would be a private benefit. The scheme before me is also not fundamentally necessary to secure the optimum viable use of the building. Whilst the existing rear extension would be removed, it is unclear whether doing so is entirely reliant on the appeal scheme. Moreover, given the harm which has been identified, the proposal would not constitute sustainable development. With this and the above in mind, the weight ascribed to the public benefits is insufficient to outweigh the harm found.

Consequently, the proposal would conflict with Policies SP11, DM09, DM10, DM16, DM18 and DM24 of the LP and the Framework. These policies seek, among other things, high quality design in development and the protection of heritage assets or their settings. New development should also retain, respect, or enhance the rural character and landscape of the area. The National Design Guide further states that the materials used for a building influence how it relates to what is around it and how it is experienced.

The appellant refers to a positive pre-application response for the same proposal at the appeal site. However, such advice is informal and cannot pre-empt the democratic decision making process or a particular outcome. The Council’s response also states that the advice involves the judgement of an officer and that an alternative view may be reached if material considerations indicate otherwise. As such, the existence of this pre-application advice does not justify an approval, nor does it diminish the weight of the identified conflict with the development plan.

The Council’s lack of discussion, absence of requests for further information or amendments, alleged inconsistent decision making and the discrepancies and adequacy of both the Council’s and their heritage consultee’s evidence, are matters that should be taken up with them directly and are not for me to resolve here.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.