Appeal 6003179

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

The appeals concern the same site and the same scheme. Although the remit of planning permission (Appeal A) and listed building consent (Appeal B) regimes are different, to reduce repetition, I have dealt with both appeals together in a single decision letter.

The appeals concern a listed building known as ‘43 and 45, [address]’1. As such, I have had regard to the statutory duties set out in sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

Whether the proposal would preserve the [name] listed building, ‘43 and 45, [address]’, or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

The list entry for ‘43 and 45, [address]’, describes the building as a house divided into two dwellings. It occupies a position on the edge of the village of 1 National Heritage List for England List Entry Number:1040901 Blakesley along a narrow pedestrian path between existing dwellings, with open countryside beyond the large rear gardens. Evidence suggests part of the building dates from the mid-17th century, with the remainder dating from around 1700 and has an ‘L-shaped’ plan form. It is of coursed squared stone construction with distinctive ironstone banded with limestone, a tile roof and brick ridge. The listed building includes both casement and mullion windows, chimneystacks, quoins and stone-coped gables with kneelers. Elements of the interior of the building are noted in the list entry, including stone flags and bolection-moulded and bressumer fireplaces. The appeal site comprises the eastern ‘wing’ of the listed building identified as [site address] (No 43) which, due to the topography of the site, is two-storey at the front and three-storey at the rear.

From the information before me and my own observations, insofar as is relevant to the appeal, the listed building’s special interest and significance derives from its architectural and historic interest as an illustration of a vernacular 17th century domestic property. Important contributing factors in these regards are the high level of craftmanship through the presence of features such as the decorative staircase and fireplaces; its traditional construction and materials; the extent of surviving historic fabric, its steeply pitched roof and the legibility of its plan form. Although several small dormer windows have been added to the listed building, its form and intrinsic heritage merit remain clear and has not been unduly eroded.

The proposal is for a single storey extension to the rear gable elevation of No 43. It would be of ‘lean-to’ form and include a tripartite timber casement window on the side elevation and full height, glazed doors and windows on the rear elevation.

While the appellant contends the proposal would be modest in scale, I find its sizeable width and height would compete with the primacy of the rear elevation. Additionally, although it would be legible as a modern addition and would be relatively simple in its design, the lean-to roof would jar awkwardly with the vernacular form and historic character of the existing gabled elevation of the building and its steeply sloping roof. The juxtaposition of the lean-to roof in proximity to the stone cill of the first floor mullion window would exacerbate the proposal’s incongruity and detract from the historic qualities of the window. Furthermore, having regard to the solid to void ratio on the rear elevation, the wide and off-centre opening at the rear of the extension would be at odds with the building’s overall composition and symmetry to a harmful degree. It would diminish the aesthetic value of the listed building’s heritage interests.

These harmful effects would not be mitigated by the use of ‘appropriate traditional facing and roofing materials’ as part of the proposed contemporary design. Indeed, the proposal would adversely alter the authenticity of how the building is experienced from within its rear garden.

I acknowledge that listed buildings can evolve over time, and change does not automatically result in harm to significance. Change can also be positive or neutral and it only becomes harmful if the identified special interest is eroded. In this case, I find the proposal, as an unsympathetic adjunct, would harmfully erode the historic and architectural integrity of the listed building and would not conserve it in a manner appropriate to its significance.

Furthermore, there is some deficiency of detail pertaining to other works required to facilitate the proposal. These include details relating to the proposed steps between the extension and the existing ground floor living room where it appears from the sectional drawing that steps here would require alteration to the floor of the historic opening; the abutment of the extension with the rear elevation, particularly whether physical intervention of steel beams would be required to the fabric of the existing elevation to support the proposal; and the routing of heating and electrical works. These omissions restrict a full understanding of the proposal and are a concern when assessing the effects of it on the special interest and significance of this designated heritage asset, and compound my concerns set out above.

The identified harmful effects would not be visible from the public domain. However, it does not follow that a lack of public visibility of a proposal result in a lack of harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset.

Drawing all of the above together, I find that the proposal would not preserve the [name] listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. As such, there would be harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Any harm should require clear and convincing justification, and the magnitude of any harm should be assessed. Planning Policy Guidance requires the category of harm to be explicitly identified and the extent of harm within that category to be articulated2. Given the extent and nature of the proposal, I find that the harm in this instance would be at the low end of ‘less than substantial’ but, nevertheless, of considerable importance and weight.

Under such circumstances, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing the asset’s optimum viable use.

The proposal would generate economic benefits in the construction phase and social benefits through an improvement to the local housing stock. However, the weight these public benefits carry in the balance is moderated by the limited extent of the proposal but, nonetheless, weigh in favour of the appeal.

That said, the additional accommodation would essentially be of private benefit to the property’s occupants. [name] acknowledge the appellant’s desire to adapt the listed building to their needs, this should not involve development and works that would not conserve it in a manner appropriate to its significance. Furthermore, there is no substantive evidence before me that the appeal proposal is required to secure the optimum viable use of the building as a dwelling. The building has an ongoing residential use that, on the basis of the information before me, would be unlikely to cease in its absence. 2 Paragraph: 018 [name]: 18a-[phone]

I find, in all the respects outlined above, clear and convincing justification for the harm to the listed building’s significance arising from the proposal has not been provided. Overall, the weight that I ascribe to the public benefits which would accrue from the proposal is not sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight I attach to the harm I have identified to the significance of the designated heritage asset.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve the special interest and significance of the [name] listed building, known as 43 and 45, [address], or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. As such, it would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and would be contrary to Policy BN5 of the [site address] Joint Core Strategy Local Plan (Part 1), adopted December 2014 and Policy HE5 of the [name] 2 Local Plan 2011-2029, adopted July 2020 (SNLP). Together, these policies, amongst other things, seek that the historic environment is conserved and enhanced and that development is of an appropriate scale, form, design and materials compatible with the character of the building. There would also be conflict with the provisions of the Framework which seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment.

The appellant contends Policy SS2 of the SNLP, which is referenced in the reason for refusal, is not relevant. However, insofar as this policy relates to design quality, I find it is relevant and that the proposal would conflict with it for the reasons given above.

The appeal site is located adjacent to the Blakesley Conservation Area (CA). Indeed, the pedestrian access to the site appears to run alongside the boundary of the CA. I note the Council raise no concerns about the effect of the proposal on the setting of the CA. As there is no statutory protection for the setting of the CA and I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I have not considered this matter further as it would not change the outcome of the appeal.

I note support for the proposal from a neighbouring resident. Nonetheless, this is a neutral consideration and does not alter my conclusion on the main issue.

Appeal A: The proposal would conflict with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that Appeal A should be dismissed.

Appeal B: For the reasons given and having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that Appeal B should be dismissed.