Appeal 6002941

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of works above from the decision notice rather than the application form as this reflects the proposal. It has been confirmed that the proposal is to block up 1 doorway, with the one into the kitchen being retained. I have assessed the scheme on this basis.

There has been previous planning permission and listed building consent for internal reconfiguration, fenestration changes and an orangery at the building. Those works appeared to be largely complete at the time of my visit with the open plan arrangement around the kitchen area in place.

As the appeal relates to a listed building, I have had special regard to section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act).

The main issue is whether the scheme would preserve the [name] listed building known as ‘The [site address] ’ (Ref 1117133) and any of the features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses.

The appeal building is a 19th century former vicarage in Gothic style in red brick with bands and dressings in blue brick. A doorway along the spine corridor marks the division of what would have been the predominantly staff areas and the more public areas the vicar, family and guests would have used. This historic layout reflects the dual use of the property and of some of the rooms.

The spine corridor has been reduced with the recent works and the former service areas beyond the proposed entrance opened up, altering the layout of the former mainly staff areas. Nevertheless, the historic plan form of the ground floor rooms before that has not been affected by the recent works and remains legible.

The appeal room shares several features with the other rooms at this end of the house and the corridor itself such as tall skirting boards, architrave, cornice and size of doorways off the corridor. These rooms and others have tall and sometimes wide windows. However, the internal doorways in this part of the building along the corridor are of a more traditional size and appearance. This gives a clear legibility to this end of the building which reflects its historic plan form. The existing doorways into the room subject to this appeal have clear differentiation based on this pattern with the smaller door being the former staff entrance.

Given the above, I find that the special interest of the listed building, insofar as it relates to this appeal, is primarily associated with the plan form differentiating the function of the building at ground floor level that reflects the historic origins of its use as a semi-public working building.

The proposal would introduce a far grander and wider opening which would not relate to the former use of the room, its purpose or reflect the other doorways in this part of the ground floor. Currently, the doorway to be closed is part of the arrangement seen as you enter the corridor. Even if doors and ironmongery were of appropriate design and the existing surrounds retained, the proposal would further erode the historic plan form and layout of the building.

The introduction of larger double doors in this part of the building would remove the consistency and pattern of openings at this end of the ground floor. The proposed doors would dominate this part of the corridor given their scale. The proximity to the corridor doorway and remaining entrance to the room would also create an awkward and unbalanced arrangement compared to the existing one with doors at either end of the room.

While an opening could be put back, the new doorway filled in and skirting put in to match the style of the existing ones, there would be a small loss of historic fabric that would not be reversible from the creation of the new opening.

Given the above, I find that the proposal would fail to preserve the special interest of the listed building. Due to the extent of the works, it would lead to harm at the lower end of less than substantial harm. Nevertheless, this would be of considerable importance and weight.

Due to the limited evidence to support that changes to the functionality, practicality and usability of the room would occur along with the scale of the scheme and that it is a private dwelling, any public benefits from these would be minor. Moreover, it has not been demonstrated that the continued viable use of the appeal property as a residential dwelling is dependent on the proposal as the building has an ongoing residential use that would not cease in its absence.

Consequently, I find that the public benefits do not outweigh the harm to the designated heritage assets, which carries great weight. As such, the scheme fails to preserve the special historic interest of the listed building and would not satisfy the requirements of the Act and paragraph 210 of the National Planning Policy Framework. Insofar as relevant it would be contrary to the historic environment protection aims of Policy SP9 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2023- 2041.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.