Appeal 6003210

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the address given in the Council’s decision notice as this more fully describes the site location.

The evidence indicates that the appellant originally applied for planning permission and listed building consent for the scheme subject to this appeal. However, only the listed building consent appeal is before me, and I have limited my consideration to this matter. In this regard, I have a statutory duty under section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) 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 National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that great weight should be given to an asset’s conservation.

The Design and Access/Heritage Statement submitted with the application explains that listed building consent is sought for a side extension and erection of detached garage. It further explains that the garage would replace a disused outbuilding. As this is a listed building consent appeal, I must take a view as to whether the demolition of the outbuilding and erection of a garage require listed building consent. Prior to the hearing, the appellant provided the site plan and block plan relating to the proposal. Although these were not listed in the Council’s decision notice, it was confirmed at the hearing by both parties that they formed part of the accompanying planning application and were relevant to this decision.

The listed building is [site address] , listed in 1974. Section 1(5) of the Act defines a listed building, and states that any object or structure fixed to the building and any object or structure within the curtilage of the building which, although not fixed to the building, forms part of the land and has done so since before 1 July 1948, shall be treated as part of the building.

The curtilage of a listed building is in general terms any area of land and other buildings around and associated with that principal building. The courts have said that there are 3 key factors to be taken into account in assessing whether a structure is within the curtilage of a listed building: (1) The physical layout of the listed building and the structure, (2) their ownership, both historically and at the date of listing, and (3) the use or function of the relevant buildings both historically and at the date of listing. At the hearing, the parties were unable to agree whether the outbuilding was curtilage listed, with the Council considering that insufficient information had been provided to reach a conclusion on the matter.

The appellant’s appeal statement comments that the outbuilding is ancillary to [site address] but is not considered a heritage asset in its own right and does not contribute to the heritage significance of the site. It also states that it is positioned away from [site address] and does not have a visual or functional relationship with it. Whilst it is noted that the historic maps confirm the presence of a building in the same location, the appellant considers that this does not confirm that this is still the same building.

Based on the limited information provided by the appellant, it falls on me to assess the outbuilding against the curtilage factors. I saw on site that the structure appeared to be of significant age, being mainly a timber frame construction, clad in horizontal boarding with a part flint gable wall. Given its apparent age and appearance as an agricultural outbuilding, its position on the site and confirmation that the building is ancillary to [site address] , I must err on the side of caution and take the view that, in all probability, the outbuilding is a curtilage listed structure to [site address] . Listed building consent is therefore required for its demolition.

In relation to the proposed erection of the garage, both parties were of the view that this new-build, detached structure would not require listed building consent. This element of the proposal was therefore not discussed at the hearing and does not form part of this decision.

The main issue is whether or not the proposal would preserve the [name] listed building or any of the features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses, and whether its significance as a heritage asset would be preserved.

[site address] (the hall) is a [name] listed building (Ref.1235896). It is a timber framed manorial hall with plastered walls and a mainly thatched roof. The list description explains that the building dates from the 16th century and is of one storey with attics. It describes the double-hung sash windows and casements, together with gabled dormers. The building has a T-shaped plan, and I saw that it was mainly of a linear plan, comprising single room depth with a lean-too passage at the rear under a low tiled roof. Adjoining the dining room at the rear is a slightly deeper lean-to with tiled roof

The hall has a relatively modern, single storey, extension to the eastern gable, built as a farm office. Despite the footprint of this structure extending slightly forward of the dwelling, its linear form and step-down pitched roof show some regard to the host building.

The Framework requires applicants to describe the significance of the heritage asset affected. The level of detail is expected to be proportionate to the asset’s importance and sufficient to understand a proposals impact on that significance. In the case before me, the information submitted does not meet the Framework requirements. Given the works involved and the proposed demolition, a much greater level of information should have been presented to support this scheme.

From the details before me, including my visit, I consider that the special interest and significance of the listed building, insofar as it relates to this appeal, is largely derived from its considerable age, form, function, historic fabric, and its architectural features. It is a good example of a high-status vernacular dwelling with clear legibility. The linear plan form, steeply pitched roof and the design and arrangement of the openings are key features. The building stands within relatively open, expansive grounds such that views of all elevations are easily seen and this allows an appreciation of its form and detailing.

The proposed extension is described as a ‘wraparound’ attaching to the western gable, continuing around to join the rear wing. It would be stepped in slightly from the existing building and be of flat-roof construction with a raised parapet and extensive, vertically proportioned, glazing to the front and side. The materials are described as render with a brick pier, aluminium windows and doors and a roof lantern. Whilst the proposed extension would abut the existing building, it would require the demolition of the rear lean-too and the removal of a window to form a doorway through to the existing kitchen.

The proposed extension would have a significant footprint and would be disproportionately large in relation to the host building. By wrapping around the gable and part of the rear with a flat-roof structure, the extension would sprawl around two sides of the building and would be very different in scale and form. The flat roof and lantern would make a marked contrast to the steeply pitched roof. Furthermore, the extensive glazing to the front and side of the building would be at odds with the solid to void relationship of the existing building and its overall design. As a result, the size, form, massing and appearance of the proposal would significantly detract from the host building and erode its legibility.

Although the extension would be largely hidden from public view, listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of whether public views are available. Equally, the significance of a listed building is not just focussed on frontages. It would be clearly viewed from multiple directions in the relatively open garden setting, and the harm I have found would be very apparent in this context.

All in all, the extension would represent a large, conspicuous, and awkward adjunct to the listed building which would detract and draw the eye and mask views of the historic elevations from many points within the garden. The hall may have already been subject to an extension on the opposite gable, but this does not justify a further large extension, especially as each side would then be encased by extensions. I therefore consider that the proposal would have a considerable, adverse impact on the special interest and significance of the listed building.

In relation to the demolition of the lean-too and window alteration, little information is provided to assess the significance of these parts of the building, such as the age of the fabric and the features affected. The window appeared to be of historic proportions and reflected other openings in the building and the lean-too included some timber-framing, although of unknown age. Therefore, it is not possible for me to assess the impact of these changes, and I must assume that there would be further harm to the building’s significance.

Whilst the purpose of this appeal is to assess the proposal before me and not to pre-judge alternatives, the Council discussed several design options when considering the application. These were briefly discussed at the hearing. The appellant may not wish the extension to read as an ‘add on’ but any alteration must sensitively integrate with the form and massing of the host building, including taking account of the presence and visual effect of the existing office extension. It seems to me that the Council’s advice of a simple, sympathetic and subordinate extension respecting well-established conservation principles following a detailed assessment of significance is the correct approach.

The appellant may wish to have an extension of a particular size and connectivity to the host building, but proposals should be informed by an understanding of significance and impact. A compromise will often have to be made to balance that significance with an owner’s aspirations and expectations.

In relation to the outbuilding proposed for demolition, I do not have adequate information relating to the contribution that this building and those attached to it make to the significance of the hall. There is little to explain the age and significance of the building fabric, function or condition. Nor is there any assessment of the effect its demolition may have on the adjoining building. Therefore, in the absence of this information and justification for demolition, together with no parallel permission for a garage on this site, I must conclude that further harm to the heritage asset would occur.

Drawing the above together, in finding harm to the listed building, the Framework requires that I assess the magnitude of that harm. In this instance, I find a moderate level of less than substantial harm. However, this should not be equated with a less than substantial planning objection and is of considerable importance and weight. The Framework requires that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposal would be beneficial to the appellant’s living conditions, and the appellant suggests that it would provide improve family living, garden views, more natural light and solar gain. Also, that it would provide more connectivity within the building, as well as elements of contemporary living. At the hearing the appellant’s agent suggested that the building was no longer fit for family living and that the proposal would future-proof it from the need for other additions. However, I regard all these as private rather than public benefits. Moreover, from the evidence before me, I am not persuaded that the extension sought is a fundamental necessity to sustain the building’s use as a single-family home or that its conservation as a designated heritage asset would be at risk, if the appeal was to fail. Even if it was found that additional floorspace was essential, it has not been demonstrated that such an improvement could not be achieved through alternative means, thereby avoiding the harm identified to the heritage asset. As such, clear and convincing justification has not been provided for this proposal which would compromise the building’s conservation to an unacceptable degree and would not conserve it in a manner appropriate to its significance.

In this case I find that the public benefits of limited weight are not sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight I attach to the identified harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset. The proposal would fail to preserve the [name] listed building or any of the features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses, and its significance as a heritage asset would not be preserved. As such, the proposal would be contrary to the requirements of the Act and the Framework. In so far as this is relevant, the proposal would also conflict with Policy LP35 of the West Suffolk Local Plan 2025 which seeks to underpin the Act and national guidance.

For the reasons given, the appeal should be dismissed.