Appeal 6002817

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of development from the application form, omitting wording that is not an act of development. Although different to that on the decision notice, no confirmation that a change was agreed has been provided.

Although noted on the planning application form as a [name]* listed building and named [site address] , the appeal property, known as [address] on the list entry1, is identified as a [name] listed building.

The Council’s delegated report and decision notice refers to the requirements of section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990 (the Act). However, this section of the Act concerns ‘whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting.’ As this appeal concerns ‘whether to grant listed building consent for any works’, it is required to be assessed against section 16(2) of the Act. I have therefore determined the appeal on this basis. As the requirements of sections 66(1) and 16(2) of the Act are the same, namely, 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, I consider that the interests of no party have been prejudiced by this approach.

The works have already been undertaken. At my site visit I saw that the roof is thatched as described on the application form. No detailed plans, specification or photographs of the works have been submitted either before or after they were carried out. I have therefore assessed the works based on what I saw at my site visit and any other information that has been put to me. 1 National Heritage List for England, [name]: 1191021

The main issue is whether the works preserve the [name] listed building, [address], or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

Located within a relatively modern housing estate, [address] is a thatched two-storey coursed rubble limestone terraced residential property. It incorporates two brick chimneys and brick buttresses to the front elevation. The property was listed [name] in January 1976. The list entry notes the it was constructed in the 18th century and was formerly two cottages, Nos 8 and [site address] . It is now a single dwelling. Notwithstanding some alterations that have been carried out to the building, including a rear extension and re-pointing works, this has not unduly eroded the building’s intrinsic heritage merit.

Insofar as is relevant to the appeal and from the evidence before me, the building’s special interest and significance are largely derived from its historic and architectural interest as an illustration of 18th century thatched domestic architecture. Important contributors in these regards which are pertinent to the appeal are its use of traditional materials; surviving historic fabric; and the legibility of its historic plan form. The property contributes to the composition and historic value of the wider terrace, which includes [name] listed 4 Orchard Hill2 and 6 Orchard Hill3 (Nos 4 and 6).

All of these properties vary in scale and form but are unified by their age and construction in limestone with thatched roofs. Indeed, the list entry identifies they have group value and this is a positive contributor to the significance of [address].

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out, 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. Paragraph 213 goes on to state that, significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or from development within its setting and that this should have clear and convincing justification.

A short-straw thatch roof has recently been laid at [address]. Since short straw was previously used on the building and its use has been accepted by the Council, I find no harm in this regard. However, it is claimed by the Council that the replacement block ridge, liggers and gable end detailing of the thatch now differs from that previously laid on the building and also differs from the thatch details at Nos 4 and 6.

The replacement thatch is of patterned block-cut ridge design and is adorned with straw animals at each end. The gable ends and eaves of the thatch are blunt cut and do not include liggers. Bearing in mind that the thatch forms an important part 2 National Heritage List for England, [name]: 1191015 3 National Heritage List for England, [name]: 1372213 of the listed building’s overall heritage value, and that liggers are not necessarily required to hold down edges when using short straw, I am satisfied the lack of liggers at the eaves and gables of the thatch is not harmful to the authenticity of this type of thatch material.

That said, I do share the Council’s concerns regarding the lack of detail in respect of elements of the works. Whilst the material used for the thatch may be acceptable, no details have been provided about the thickness of the thatch, types of fixings, or the material used for the decorative block ridge spas and liggers. In the absence of such details, I cannot be certain the works now undertaken support the premise that the historically recognisable configuration of the thatch and the integrity of the listed building have been maintained, because the submitted information lacks detail in confirming that this is the case.

There is disagreement between the parties whether the previous ridgeline detail of the thatch differed from that at Nos 4 and 6. [name] recognise some variations of such detailing arise in relation to thatched buildings, the materials, design and the method of laying contribute to the authenticity and heritage values of the buildings on which it is used. The deficiency in the detail of these elements limits an informed analysis. It is imperative that drawings and specifications of sufficient detail to illustrate and/or describe works are provided to avoid any ambiguity over what work has been undertaken, and to allow a meaningful assessment of any consequent effects. These deficiencies are highly undesirable in general terms, but even more so given the building’s [name] listed status.

I acknowledge that urgent remedial work to the previous thatch may have been required for insurance purposes and due to water ingress, and that the services and advice of a professional [name] was sought. I also have no reason to believe that the current thatch is not of high quality and was laid at considerable expense. Nonetheless, these factors do not overcome the lack of information concerning details about the previous thatch, or any other historic thatch on the building, or the specific details of the current works to be certain that the works preserve the significance of the listed building.

Consequently, I find that it has not been demonstrated that the works have preserved the [name] listed building, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. As such, in the absence of sufficient detail, I cannot be certain that the works have not resulted in harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset.

In finding potential harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the magnitude of that harm should be assessed. Given the nature and extent of the works, I find the harm to the significance of the listed building would be at the lower end of ‘less than substantial’. However, this harm carries considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, which includes securing the optimum viable use of the building.

It is likely that the work has generated economic benefits from the installation of the thatch and social benefits in an improvement to the local housing stock. However, insofar as there is uncertainty about whether the works as carried out preserve the special architectural or historic interest of the listed building, this carries limited positive weight.

Moreover, no compelling evidence has been presented which demonstrates that the works were necessary to secure the listed building’s ongoing residential use, or that its conservation as a designated heritage asset would be at risk if the appeal was to fail.

In all of the above respects, clear and convincing justification has not been provided for the identified potential harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset. On balance, in giving considerable importance and weight to the potential harm to the significance of the listed building, I find that this is not outweighed by the limited public benefits generated by the works.

Accordingly, I conclude that it has not been demonstrated that the works preserve the [name] listed building, [address], or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses and have potentially harmed its significance. As such, it conflicts with the Act and the provisions within the Framework which seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment.

Listed building appeals are not subject to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Additionally, section 16(2) of the Act does not require the decision maker to have regard to the development plan when determining applications and appeals for listed building consent. Nonetheless, I note that the works conflict with Policy BN5 of the [name] Local Pla (Part 1), December 2014 and Policy ENV6 of the Northampton Local Plan Part 2 2011-2029, March 2023. Together, these policies, amongst other things, seek that development conserves and enhances the historic environment.

It is put to me by the appellant that were the integrity of the work to have been a concern, a certificate of insurance through the Listed Properties Owners Club would not have been accepted. However, matters related to property insurance are separate to and not directly comparable to the assessment of the planning merits of the works. The certificate of insurance does not change my conclusion on the works before me.

The appellant refers to support for the works, and I note comments in favour of the works from a neighbour. Nonetheless, this is a neutral consideration and weighs neither for nor against the appeal.

Concerns regarding the processing of the application by the Council, including matters relating to the length of time it took to determine are not matters for my consideration as part of this appeal.

For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.