Appeal 6003170

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has suggested that the proposal could be amended to remove the lantern light on top of the extension, with the aim of reducing its prominence. Plans have not formally been submitted to that effect and there is no mechanism under a householder appeal for representations to be made by the Council or members of the public on such changes. However, as what is proposed would be a very minor change which reduces the size of the proposal, albeit marginally, I have had regard to it in my assessment of the appeal.

In accordance with the statutory duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Edwalton Conservation Area (CA).

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the CA.

The significance of the CA lies at least in part in the historical layout and evolution of the village of Edwalton and the architecture found on buildings within it. The appeal dwelling consists of an extended barn which itself is attached to a former farmhouse which forms a separate dwelling. The farmhouse fronts onto [site address] and the elevation of [site address] facing that road is unbroken by any extensions or projections. In fact, the whole of that range which includes the farmhouse is uncluttered by extensions or projections, with only a small traditional style porch to the front of the farmhouse.

There is a key/principal view towards the farmhouse and appeal property identified in the Edwalton Conservation Area Townscape Appraisal and both properties are identified as positive buildings in that same document. The Council further describes the appeal dwelling as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). [name] have not been directed to a historical environment record to that effect, the Council has provided a meaningful explanation of how it has been concluded that a NDHA designation should apply. I find no reason to disagree with their conclusions in that regard. The appeal property is without doubt an important building within the CA in both historical and architectural terms and is one which is prominently located on the corner of two primary roads. It also serves as a visual reminder of the farming history in the settlement. As such, it contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CA and to its significance.

There is screening from some public views in the way of a high brick wall and trees/hedging. However, there are several locations from where the part of the elevation of the appeal dwelling on which the proposal would be located can be seen, most notably from on one of the corners of [site address] and [address] and from directly opposite the appeal property on the other side of [site address] . By reason of its height and positioning, and even without the lantern light present, the proposal would be visible from those viewpoints. It would introduce a non-traditional feature to that elevation which would both obscure the historic fabric of the building and disrupt the simple plan form of [site address] . This would cause harm to the character and appearance of the CA, including when viewed as part of the wider frontage which includes the farmhouse, and to that of the host dwelling as a NDHA.

Given the scale of the development and that its impact would be limited to a relatively small part of the CA, I consider that less than substantial harm would be caused to the CA, to the lower end of that spectrum. Nonetheless, in light of the statutory duty that relates to this designated heritage asset, the harm that would be caused carries considerable importance and weight in the planning balance of this appeal. Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The appellant has not advanced any public benefits of the appeal development.

My attention has been drawn to examples of other recent development in the immediate area and within the CA, including that which has incorporated flat roofs. However, none of the sites on which development has taken place are comparable to that of the appeal property in terms of their historic importance and in the contributions that they make to the character and appearance of the CA.

In conclusion, the proposed development would not comply with paragraph 215 of the Framework and is contrary to the requirements of the Framework in that regard. It also fails to accord with Policies 10 and 11 of the [name] 2014 and Policies 1 and 28 of the Local Plan Part 2 2019 where collectively they seek to safeguard character and appearance and to conserve or enhance heritage assets.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.