Appeal 6003131

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site is within [site address] Conservation Area (CA) therefore I have a statutory duty under Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The main issue of the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the [site address] and the surrounding area, including the CA.

The appeal site comprises a two-storey detached dwelling with a dual pitched (M shaped) roof with a single storey rear extension. [address] is in a primarily residential area characterised by rows of terraced housing. The site is located between two rows of housing on a bend in the road, such that the plot has an irregular shape and is larger than typical of the immediate area.

The [site address] Conservation Area Appraisal indicates that the significance of the CA derives from its historic and architectural value. The different character areas represent the historic development of the town from its original core as an agricultural village comprising largely of stone buildings, to its periphery being later developed by industry due to the towns location on key travel corridors. The site is located within the “[name]” character area of the CA, characterised by red-brick Victorian terraced houses.

The appeal site is one of a few anomalies within the character area, with the properties key differences being that it is a detached dwelling on a large plot. No other properties in proximity have the same roof design as the appeal site. The dwelling is in a simpler style than the Victorian terraced houses surrounding it, but its front elevation is still partially reflective of the predominant architectural design. As such the current appeal site has a neutral contribution to the CA.

The proposed development is for a rear extension, introducing a new dual pitched roof. There would be very limited views from the public domain on [address] of the proposed extension, but there would be some views from [address], and it would also be highly visible from a range of neighbouring properties looking into and across the CA, where the views are of the rear of the terraced houses on [address]. The contribution that setting makes to the significance of a heritage asset does not depend on there being public rights of way or an ability to otherwise access or experience that setting.

Though there is a consistency of the rear extensions on [address] in plan form, there is a range of the design, height, and shape, typical of rear extensions of terraced houses. The extensions are also almost all exclusively subservient in height to the original dwelling, making the original house clearly legible. Though these extensions do not form part of the original properties as built, their form does comprise a typical characteristic of terraced housing.

The proposed extension would not be subservient to the original dwelling, and its width and massing is not reflected on [address] or the wider area. Consequently, it would appear at odds with neighbouring properties and incongruous. [name].45 sits on a larger plot than neighbouring properties, this does not warrant having an extension that does not relate well to the surrounding built environment. The proposed extension would accentuate the differences between the appeal site and the other properties that match the predominant character of the area and therefore would be at detriment to it.

Regarding the National Planning Policy Framework’s (the Framework) wording, the proposal would have less than substantial harm and would be at the lower end of that category of harm. In accordance with Paragraph 215 of the Framework, when less than substantial harm is found it must be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme. The proposals would result in some economic benefits through the construction of the scheme, however considering the scale of the proposal these can only be attributed limited weight. Paragraph 212 of the Framework states that great weight should be attributed to the conservation of heritage assets. As such the benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the harm and therefore the proposal conflicts with the Framework.

For the reasons above, I conclude on balance, the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area and would be harmful to it. This would fail to satisfy the requirements of s72(1) of the Act. The development would also conflict with Policy 8 – [address] [name] of the [name] 2016, which seek among other things, that development should respond to local character.

The appellant has highlighted the absence of local objections; however, this is a neutral factor in the determination of the appeal. My role is to objectively assess the appeal, and I have found harm to the character and appearance of the area, including the CA.

In conclusion, the proposal would conflict with the development plan, and there are no material considerations that would outweigh the conflict. The proposal would also be in conflict with the Framework and contrary to s72(1) of the Act. For these reasons the appeal should be dismissed.