Appeal 6003196

The appeals relate to the same scheme under different legislation. I have dealt with the appeals together in my reasoning.

At the site visit the appellants advised that they had changed their names. No written confirmation of this has been received, so I have retained the names that were entered on the application form and at the time the appeals were submitted for the purposes of this decision.

The main issue for both appeals is the effect of the proposal upon the significance of the grade II listed building known as Naunton Farmhouse1.

An additional main issue for Appeal A is whether the proposed holiday let use accords with local planning policy. 1 [name]: 1349340 Appeal Decisions 6003196, 6003232

Sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (LBCA) require the decision maker to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

The appeal building is a large farmhouse. Its principal range dates from the late 18th century and faces south. It is a neat symmetrical composition of three bays with the central bay projected forward modestly and topped with a pediment with brick modillion detailing. Internally this part of the building is arranged into two large principal rooms to each floor, to either side of the main entrance hall and staircase. It stands over an original basement, which has its original finishes.

To the rear stand two large wings that are mid-19th century in date. These do not match and have a more utilitarian appearance than the front of the building. Between the rear wings stands a single storey infill that appears to be in two phases and was certainly erected after the two rear wings. It is suggested that this area dates from the mid to late 19th century. Two different sized single storey gable projections extend out to the west that are given a suggested date of the late 19th century, and a small infill section between these forms the current main entrance to the dwelling and is thought to be late 20th century in date.

The primary significance of the building is derived from the original 18 th century range, as a result of its overall form and appearance, surviving plan form and historic fabric. The rear wings are also of significance as they illustrate the evolution of the building and include significant elements of historic fabric such as the substantial external stack on the west side. A more modest level of interest is found in the later single storey additions, which have been considerably altered and possess limited historic detailing.

Two extensions are proposed, in a similar style. The loss of the existing late 20th century portion of the building to form an enlarged entrance hall would not be harmful as a matter of principle. However, whilst the west facing extension would see the narrow late 19th century wing retained, its roof form would be lost. A new roof would be formed that would ignore the existing form of this little adjunct. It would also extend to the south to enclose the basement steps. The justification for this is lacking. The character and appearance of the steps would be altered by this intervention, and enclosing the fabric in a space that would become heated could cause harm, for reasons that I will expand upon later.

The proposed roof would extend over the steps to the existing brick wall, which appears to serve an important role in separating the polite front of the house from the more functional side and rear elevations. The wall would be retained but the new roof, with its overtly modern appearance, would extend over the top of the wall so that its edge becomes a prominent component of the building’s main south elevation. Here it would appear incongruous and out of place, owing to its form and materials, alongside this formal and well composed elevation.

To the west, the proposed extension would step forward to be flush with the existing west facing wing. Beyond this the roof would extend, and would wrap awkwardly around the existing gable. In this respect the proposed extension would Appeal Decisions 6003196, 6003232 fail to hold a subservient relationship with the existing west facing elements of the building, and there is nothing before me to explain why it is considered necessary for the extension to project out this far.

The existing infill between the two north facing wings would be altered by removing the end wall and inserting a new roof. The retained spine wall would mean that it would still be possible to have a basic understanding of the two phases of this historic infill extension. However, its simple lean-to roofs would be removed and replaced with a modern low pitched roof. Furthermore, the alteration would also be overly assertive as a result of the forward projection of the roof and the extent of glazing. The large glazed areas would appear out of place in the context of the functional appearance of what is the rear of the house.

The fenestration of this intervention would also draw the eye, and its impact would be compounded by a prominent arrangement of steps. The roof position is dictated by the desire to provide a separate access to the proposed flat, and results in a large area of glazing that would sit over the wider door opening and again serve to make it more prominent. The differing heights of the two doors would appear incongruous and somewhat confusing in the context of ground floor windows to either side that are at the same height.

Policy SWDP21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 (SWDP) gives support to new and innovative designs where they enhance the overall quality of the built environment. Adopting contemporary details, materials and forms can often be successful in the context of an historic building, and examples of approved schemes for contemporary extensions to listed buildings have been provided. However, like most historic buildings, this building has unique characteristics as a result of its original design and evolution that give it its historic significance. I have found that the proposed extensions would be harmful for the reasons given; not solely because of their contemporary materials and form, but also because of their assertive scale, siting and jarring fenestration treatments, which would not enhance the overall quality of the built environment, and would therefore gain no support from Policy SWDP21.

The cellars are currently vapour open. Original permeable finishes are retained, which allows moisture that gets into the fabric to evaporate. Similarly, were the cellar to flood for whatever reason, it should be possible for it to dry out again without damage to fabric. At the time of my visit, I could see that this floor is used for storage and as a workshop, which is ideal and is similar to the ancillary use for which it would have been originally built. Indeed, its layout, its limited natural light, its features such as the storage shelves and the flat stone surfaces either side of the main stairs which would have been used for sliding or rolling materials into or out of the cellar, point to its ancillary function.

The proposal includes raised floors to these areas and heating. No justification is given for this. Although no details of the proposed floor make up are included, inserting suspended floors would most likely lead to the build up of damp beneath, which could result in the decay of the original brick floors. The character and appearance of the cellars would also be significantly altered as a result. Heating this level and thereby altering the moisture balance and humidity of the space would also constitute a significant intervention that is likely to have an adverse impact on building fabric. It would also require further changes to improve heat loss such as installing a fitted window in place of the existing bars, for which no Appeal Decisions 6003196, 6003232 details are provided. Thus, this intervention is lacking in detail and unjustified. It would impact an important component of the original late 18th century range and thus cause considerable harm to the building’s significance.

The reason for refusal for the listed building consent does not specifically refer to harm to the cellars, although it does refer to the concealment of historic fabric. In any case, the Council’s concern regarding the proposals for the cellar are clearly set out in the comments from its conservation officer which are included in the officer report.

At ground floor level a new opening is proposed to connect the kitchen to the dining room. This was an external wall when the rear wing was constructed. A substantial stone plinth exists in this area. The floor levels between the kitchen and dining room are different and it might be possible to form this opening without removing this higher quality fabric. However, the drawings suggest that a step would be formed within the reveal which would result in the loss of part of the stone plinth, which would be harmful.

The eastern part of the ground floor is in use as an annex that appears to be operating as a self-contained one bed dwelling. Two existing doors currently connect it to the rest of the house, but these are not in use. The plans suggest that the doors would be retained but blocked on the west side with partitions that would have a plasterboard finish. As with other elements of the proposal, the details relating to this are limited. For the opening at the end of the rear hallway, once blocked there would be no sign that a ground floor connection previously existed here, from the west side. It might be possible to retain the architrave in-situ for the more formal opening between the main hallway. This would mark the position of the opening, but a modest degree of harm would arise from visually disconnecting the door from the hallway, especially as it currently forms an attractive arrangement alongside the front door and door to the opposite room.

Also related to the annex is the proposal to under draw the existing lathe and plaster ceilings for fire and sound protection. As well as covering the attractive undulating finish of the existing lathe and plaster, this intervention would also reduce the visible depth of the existing beams, which within the bedroom has chamfers and stops. There is nothing before me to suggest that alternative solutions have been considered.

The annex already exists, is independently occupied, and the appellant suggests has now received a certificate of lawfulness2. However, the independent use of parts of the first and second floor for a holiday let is a new proposal. Further subdivision of the building would require a significant level of further intervention to the building’s fabric through measures such as upgrading partitions, floors and ceilings to provide the necessary separation, the further blocking of doors and the desire to create an independent access which would cause harm for the reasons already given.

In general terms the best way to conserve an historic building is usually to keep it in its original use. In this case, the dwelling is a large rural farmhouse, with generous grounds. There is nothing before me to demonstrate that to retain it as such is not viable, or that further subdivision is necessary to secure its future conservation. Furthermore, if divided as proposed there is the potential risk that 2 Council ref: M/25/00973/CLE Appeal Decisions 6003196, 6003232 parts of the dwelling could be more formally separated in the future through different ownerships, which would further fragment the building and could have an adverse effect on the way it is conserved and maintained.

A first floor window has vertical bars. The proposal includes the removal of these. There is nothing before me to show that their significance has been considered. However, at my visit I observed them to be modern and set within a modern frame and behind a single sheet of glass. I am satisfied that no harm would arise from their loss.

Numerous further interventions are proposed that the Council accepts in principle. I have reviewed these and see no reason to disagree.

I have found that the proposal would harm the significance of the listed building for the reasons given. In terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) the harms would be less than substantial. The extent of harm would be significant when taken as a whole and particularly as it includes extensions that would cause considerable visual harm and the further unjustified subdivision of the building. The harm would be of considerable importance and weight, and Paragraph 215 of the Framework establishes that any harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

It is suggested that the glazed facades for the extensions would better reveal the older parts of the building. This is a benefit that would attract very little weight as it would be delivered in the context of extensions that would cause considerable visual harm for the reasons given.

On the basis that the annex use is lawful, providing proper fire separation between it and the rest of the dwelling would make both residential units safer. This is a public benefit. However the weight I give to it is modest owing to the limited justification before me to show that less invasive alternatives and the impacts of this work have been properly considered.

For the reasons already given I give no weight to the suggestion that subdividing the building and intensifying its use is a conservation related public benefit.

The use of the proposed holiday let would generate an economic benefit as future visitors make use of local services and facilities and visit local attractions. The unit would however be small, so I will attach modest weight to this benefit.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework states that great weight should be given to the conservation of a heritage asset. The public benefits carry limited weight and are not sufficient to outweigh the level of harm identified.

In summary, the proposal would harm the significance of the listed building. In reaching this position I have had regard to the requirements of the LBCA. The proposal would fail to accord with Policies SWDP6, 21 and 24 of the SWDP, which together seek to ensure that proposals conserve and enhance heritage assets and are of a high quality of design.

Policy SWDP35 of the SWDP provides support for planning permission for new visitor accommodation outside a development boundary, which is the case for the appeal site, subject to complying with a set of criteria. Appeal Decisions 6003196, 6003232

As the proposal would utilise part of the existing building and there would be no harm to neighbouring amenity the first two criterion would be satisfied.

It would however not accord with any of the other criteria. The parts of the listed building that would be turned over to the proposed use cannot be considered redundant as they are currently rooms that are in a good state of repair within an occupied dwelling.

With regard to supporting text to the Policy, I accept that the proposal would not result in the erection of a new building in the countryside. However, with further reference to the supporting text, a holiday let use in a rural location such as this would not have access to the infrastructure, amenities, public transport links and cycling and walking infrastructure needed to support it. This approach accords with the Council’s development strategy set out in Policy SWDP2, which seeks to focus most development on the urban areas and strictly control development in the open countryside.

The appellant seeks to draw support for the subdivision from Policy SWDP24 of the SWDP. For the reasons already given I cannot however agree that the proposed holiday let would constitute the sympathetic or creative reuse or adaptation of the building. Furthermore, as I have already noted, there is nothing before me to suggest that the listed building is at risk or does not have a sustainable future in its current form.

In summary, the proposed holiday let use does not accord with Policies SWDP2 or 35 of the SWDP.

The Council’s second refusal reason for Appeal A refers to harm to the character and appearance of the host building and wider area. I have considered this in detail in the context of the building’s listed status. The mature landscaping of the building mean that it is not prominent to view beyond the site. I am not satisfied that the proposed extensions would harm the wider character or appearance of the area, and do not therefore consider it necessary to address this as an additional main issue of Appeal A.

The proposal would be contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeals should be dismissed.