Appeal 6003054

Appeal A: The appeal is dismissed.

Appeal B: The appeal is dismissed.

I have removed the words ‘retention of’ from the description of development above, as it does not describe development. However, for the avoidance of doubt, I saw on site that the CCTV and lights are in place in accordance with the plans before me, and I have considered the appeal on the basis that the development has already taken place.

The appeal property is the [name] listed building known as ‘[name] and [name], which is located within the Gawcott Conservation Area (CA). In reaching my decisions, I have considered the statutory duties under sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 (the Act).

The main issues in this case are whether the development and works preserve the listed building or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses and preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [name]. Appeal Decisions 6003052 & 6003052

The appeal property is a grade II listed building1 fronting the [address] within the settlement of Gawcott. The two storey property was listed in 1952 and consists of what was originally two separate cottages with a shed deriving from the late 17th century. It has since been remodelled, including the demolition of the frontage of the second cottage to create the current linear form. It is formed of red brick in English bond on a coursed squared limestone plinth, with a plain-tile roof and brick ridge stack.

The significant repair work both externally and internally so that the original 3-unit through-passage plan originally is somewhat obscured and there are substantial clearly modern additions/repairs, however the original farmhouse character remains evident.

Given the above, I find that the special interest and significance of the listed building to be primarily associated with its historic and architectural interests as a good illustration of mid late 17 century vernacular domestic architecture which has evolved over time. Important contributors in these regards which are pertinent to the appeal are extant historic fabric; and key historic features and detailing.

The listing description refers to a ‘Lower 2-storey outbuilding to left, continued by single-storey outbuilding. The former is of red brick in English bond with plain-tile roof and a 3-light casement window to ground floor near house with wood lintel, the latter is of brick in Flemish bond with some flared headers on coursed rubble plinth and has corrugated iron roof.’

Extensive recent construction2 has been undertaken at the property which include a newly rebuilt central two storey element described above, which had previously been extensively propped to prevent collapse.

In addition, the single storey former workshop outbuilding/projection has also been extensively remodelled and now incorporates a large open space kitchen dining area with large glazed bi-fold openings, mostly in the former shed doors. Nevertheless, by virtue of their retained and sensitive design and materials, the recent re-construction retains much of the form of the original structures and does not obscure the historic form of the wider building. It ensures that the structures continue to contribute positively to the asset’s historic and architectural interests and therefore significance.

The appeal site is located within the [name]. The CA is centred around [address], and I observed that the significance of the CA as a whole largely derives from its rich and cohesive number of vernacular historic 18th or 19th Century buildings, in addition to some earlier 16th and 17th century properties, which form a fine and consistent townscape.

As a vernacular 17th century building, [site address] contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole.

A number of CCTV cameras in addition to external lights have been erected on the rear elevation of the property, and I observed that they are erected on the newly rebuilt central or former workshop element of the building. The former workshop is 1 [name]:1205840 2 Including approval references 22/00883/APP & 22/00847/LAB Appeal Decisions 6003052 & 6003052 not part of the original core 17th century house and has evidently been much altered and modernised. It does not contribute to its special interest to the same extent as the original core. Nevertheless, it represents the phases of the property and it remains that it still provides some positive support to its special interest and significance. Similarly, even if the rear elevation does not contain the same amount of historic fabric or detailing as the frontage, it also provides some positive support to its special interest and significance.

Whilst not shown on any drawing, the appellant contends that the lights and CCTV are attached to the building through the mortar joints rather than directly into the face of bricks. This limits any harm to historic fabric, however, in penetrating the fabric of the historic building, even on rebuilt or later additions, it has not entirely prevented any harm whatsoever. Moreover, I observed that one light is affixed to a timber section of the central element of the house. There is therefore some, albeit minor, harm to historic fabric.

The lights and CCTV themselves are of limited scale and are muted in their colour. As such, individually, they have a minor visual impact. However, there are 6 sets of lights and two CCTV cameras.

Cumulatively, this results in a visual impact and clutter that is very apparent on this part of the rear elevation and which draws the eye. They are read as a starkly modern intrusion and stand out as an atypical feature contrasting with the general retained detailing and traditional material finish. They appear as inappropriate and unsuitable additions that detract from the aesthetic value of the property, and collectively are at odds with the historic vernacular character of the wider elevation, diminishing its significance.

Even if this array of CCTV and lights are common on residential properties, this does not take into account the individual historic qualities of this property.

I conclude that the proposed development and works fail to preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the [name] listed building, [site address] and harm its significance as a designated heritage asset.

The above harm to significance results in some residual harmful effect to the character and appearance of the CA. It does not therefore preserve the character and appearance of the CA as a whole and harms its significance as a designated

Given the fairly localised nature of the works relative to the building and CA as a whole, I find the harm to both heritage assets to be, individually and cumulatively, at a minor level of ‘less than substantial’ but nevertheless is of considerable importance and weight.

Even if improvements to safety and security in this regard may be considered a public benefit, it has not been demonstrated that the cameras and lights are the only way of achieving this, nor has it been shown that the works and development are fundamentally necessary to facilitate the building’s optimum viable use as residential accommodation.

Reversibility alone does not justify alteration, and as stated above, there is, albeit modest, harm to historic fabric. Appeal Decisions 6003052 & 6003052

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicates that, when considering the impact on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. On balance, in giving considerable importance and weight to the harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets, I find that this would not be outweighed by the public benefits that the proposal would generate.

Consequently, the harm identified to the significance of the designated heritage assets has not been supported by clear and convincing justification. The development and works therefore conflict with the statutory presumptions set out in sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Act and fail to satisfy the historic environment conservation and enhancement policies of the Framework. There is also conflict with Policy BE1 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (2021) insofar as which, amongst other matters, require that development complements and respects the character of its context the locality.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that both Appeal A and Appeal B should be dismissed.