Appeal 6002806

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of development from the application form, omitting wording that is not an act of development.

The appeal form refers only to the refusal of a planning application for the development set out in the banner heading above, even though the Council confirm an associated listed building consent application has also been refused for the works. For the avoidance of doubt, my considerations relate solely to the development that is the subject of the planning application.

The application form states that the development has been completed. I observed during my site visit that the single storey rear extension has been constructed and is being used as a kitchen area. As far as could be determined from inspection, the extension corresponds with the details in the application. The appeal decision should flow from the submitted plans rather than what has been carried out1. Therefore, for the avoidance of doubt, I have considered the development based on the submitted drawings.

The appeal relates to a listed building that is also located within a conservation area. As such, I have had special regard to sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) which require me to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses; and to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character and appearance of the conservation area. 1 Under Article 7(1)(c) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 no plans are necessary to determine retrospective applications/appeals. But if plans have been submitted that show the development they should be taken into account.

The main issues are whether the development would preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the [name] listed building, 35 Woolton Street2; and the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the Woolton Village Conservation Area.

Dating from the early 19th century, the [name] listed [site address] is a modest-sized two-storey dwelling. It is set back from [address] behind iron railings and sits within a terraced row of similar aged properties. It is constructed in brick with a slate roof and timber sash windows with glazing bars. A decorative fanlight sits above a 6-panel timber entrance door which is accessed up two steps. The rear elevation of the property faces [address]. It has less architectural detailing than the front façade and has changed over time, incorporating a two-storey outrigger up to the pavement edge along [address]. A sandstone wall runs along the rest of the property’s boundary with [address].

From the evidence before me, the special interest and significance of the listed building in so far as it relates to the appeal, are largely derived from its historic and architectural interests. Its historic interest primarily results from its age and illustration of 19th century domestic architecture. Its traditional construction and use of local materials are important factors in these regards. The building’s architectural interest mainly stems from the attractive form and design of its frontage, as well as the contribution it makes to the harmonious composition of the terraced row, emphasising its value as an integral element of the historic townscape.

The appeal property is located within the Woolton Village Conservation Area (WVCA). The WVCA incorporates the built-up core of the village around [address] and [address] and the spacious, verdant parkland surrounding [address]. A medieval cross facing [address], at the junction of [address] and [address], suggest medieval origins of this part of the village. Indeed, the list entry notes this was the historic main village street. This part of [address] is now residential and has been somewhat severed from the commercial part of [address] in the centre of the village by the wide and busy road known as [address]. Nonetheless, the consistent use of sandstone and brick in buildings and boundary walls provides a strong unified appearance to the character of the village.

From the limited information available to me and what I observed, I find the significance of the WVCA is largely derived from the contribution that [address] and surrounding Georgian and Victorian buildings and streets make individually and collectively to the appreciation of Woolton’s expansion as a suburb of Liverpool and the prevailing high quality architectural styles of the time. There is also significance derived from the harmonious composition and materials palette of the buildings and boundary features in the area. 2 National Heritage List for England, [name]: 1063757

In exemplifying these key qualities, the appeal property supports and contributes positively to the character and appearance of the WVCA as a whole and thereby its significance as a designated heritage asset.

Occupying a highly prominent position along [address], the development completely fills the former rear yard area of the appeal property. Although in itself of modest size and includes a slate roof, the development is relatively high in relation to the head-height of the neighbouring rear-facing ground floor window. It is also wide in the context of the overall narrow width of the properties within the terrace and the appeal property itself. This, combined with the use of painted black cladding as an external facing material draws the eye and results in much of the rear elevation of the property being obscured. Even though the development is not visible from [address], it has a clear and harmful visual prominence in public views along [address].

This harm is further emphasised by an external drainpipe on the building’s rear elevation extending out over the roof of the development, the use of an inauthentic edging material to the roof and a projecting roof light. These features jar against the traditional materials found elsewhere on the building and the wider terrace.

There is a notable deficiency of detail regarding the construction of the development in relation to the rear sandstone boundary wall. From the plans and what I saw, the development is built over part of the coping stone of the wall. The development’s uncomfortable juxtaposition with the wall and the absence of a physical separation to it, and also to an existing lower ground level outbuilding within the rear yard only serves to emphasise the development’s incongruity. It dilutes the distinction between the building and its outdoor space.

Furthermore, no detailed plans or specifications have been provided in relation to alterations made to the ground floor rear elevation fenestration or external door of the listed building which provides access into the development. The omissions regarding the detail of physical interventions and alterations are a deficiency and restrict a full understanding of the development and its effects. As such I cannot be certain that the development preserves historic fabric.

At my site visit, I observed that there are existing extensions at the rear of properties on the terraced row. It is not uncommon for incremental additions and alterations to be made to historic properties. However, other extensions in this terrace appear to be predominantly constructed in brick and do not cover the property’s entire rear garden area. Furthermore, given the longer rear gardens, I found that these existing extensions do not have the same visual impact as the appeal development, given its proximity to [address].

To conclude on the effects of the development, I find it to be an unsympathetic and visually harmful intervention that weakens the architectural interest and the enduring legibility and relationship between the listed building and its exterior spaces. Due to its height, combined with the use of painted cladding and its position on and extending above the rear sandstone wall, key aspects of the WVCA’s appearance are harmed. This harmful external change at the rear of the listed building, which is conspicuous in public views along [address], does not preserve the character and appearance of the WVCA as a whole.

Drawing all of the above together, the development does not preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the [name] listed building, [site address] . It also fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the WVCA as a whole and the significance of these designated heritage assets is harmed.

In finding harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, the magnitude of that harm should be assessed. Given the nature and extent of the development, I find the harm to the listed building to be ‘less than substantial’, and at the lower end of the scale. Similarly, I find the harm identified in relation to the WVCA to also be at the lower end of the scale of ‘less than substantial’. Nevertheless, this harm carries considerable importance and weight.

Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) confirms that the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the development, including, where appropriate, securing the asset’s optimum viable use.

The appellant has advanced the argument that there would be public benefit arising from replacing a previous inferior extension. Limited details have been provided to me about the previous extension or whether it was authorised, other than it was a ‘lightweight’ structure supported on a metal frame and was not as high as the appeal development. In any event, I am required to consider the development now before me and, even if the previous extension was of poor quality, it does not justify a development that I find to be harmful.

I accept that being located close to [address], passengers sitting on the upper deck of a double-decker bus waiting at the signalised junction with [address] may have previously had views towards the rear-facing ground floor dining room of the appeal property. Occupants of this room are now afforded some privacy, but this is essentially a private benefit. Similarly, even if the development has resulted in less noise within the property from passing traffic, this is a private benefit and I am not convinced that an alternative, less harmful, solution to either of these matters would not be possible. Insofar as the development constitutes the refurbishment of and investment into a residential property, I attribute some very limited weight to these factors as a public benefit.

However, there is no substantive evidence before me which demonstrates that the development is required to secure the optimum viable use of the dwelling. It has an ongoing residential use that, on the basis of the information before me, would be unlikely to cease in its absence. In these respects, the clear and convincing justification for the harm to the listed building’s significance and the character and appearance of the WVCA arising from the development, as set out in paragraph 213 of the Framework, has not been demonstrated.

I acknowledge that houses are for living in, the needs of occupiers will change, and a modern, functional kitchen area is important, but so too, is private outdoor amenity space. I am also aware of the Framework’s support for the adaptation of homes to meet changing requirements. Nonetheless, as designated heritage assets, listed buildings are an irreplaceable resource and the Framework is clear that they should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, which I have found not to be the case with the appeal before me.

Even if I were to agree that there is no harm to the living conditions of neighbouring residents as a result of the development, this is a neutral factor rather than one that carries positive weight in favour of the development.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework sets out that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Overall, the very limited weight I ascribe to the public benefits attributable to the development are not sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight I attach to the harm I have found.

I conclude that the proposal does not preserve the [name] listed building or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, nor does it preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the WVCA. There is harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets which is not outweighed by public benefits.

As such, the development fails to satisfy the requirements of the Act. It also conflicts with policies HD1, UD1 and H8 of the Liverpool Local Plan 2013-2033, adopted January 2022. Together and insofar as they relate to this appeal, these policies seek high quality development that is of a size, scale and materials in keeping with the original dwelling and the surrounding area and conserves the significance of heritage assets. The development also fails to adhere to the provisions of Chapter 16 of the Framework which seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment.

The development conflicts with the development plan. The material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the

Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.