Appeal 6003251

The appeals are dismissed.

At the time of my site visit, building works were ongoing at the property. The front elevation brickwork had been covered over and the porch shown as existing on the plans was no longer in place. The paint to the other external walls had been largely removed. [name] cannot be certain that the works accord with the information in the appeals, I have dealt with them based on the plans and details submitted.

As the proposal relates to a listed building, I have had special regard to sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act).

The appeal site is in the Green Belt. From the evidence before me, given the additional scale of the porch, and nature of the other works, the appeal scheme would be the extension or alteration of a building that does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Therefore, it is not inappropriate development.

The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve the [name] listed building known as “ [site address] ” and any of the features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses. Appeal Decision 6003329 & 6003251

[site address] is a 2-storey timber framed building from the 17th/18th century. The listing refers to colour-washed brick walls with a band at first floor. There are several sash windows and casement ones of varying age. The property retains many historic features and fabric despite the building being altered over time with extensions. The listing and existing plans identify an open lattice porch to the front and the front elevation retains much of its historic features and prominence.

The special interest of [site address] derives, so far as relevant to these appeals, from it being an example of a vernacular domestic building of this period and of the surviving legibility of historic construction techniques, detailing and traditional materials.

The proposed porch, unlike the previous one, would be enclosed to the sides and front. While it would be the same height and re-use the tiles where possible, it would also be wider than the existing one. These factors would result in it being a more solid structure. Even with glass doors, which would also introduce reflection, the porch would obscure the existing views of the historic elegant panel front door and flagstones. In addition, it would be a more imposing feature which would draw the eye and distract from the historic features and appearance of this elevation with the contrasting materials. Little evidence has been presented that the previous porch was not capable of being retained and repaired.

Though previously with washed walls, the brick detail, pattern and band at first floor was visible and could be appreciated. The proposed rendering would obscure this and leave a largely flat surface with little texture even if the render were combed. The appreciation of the texture, detailing and brickwork would be lost. Were the appeals to be allowed a condition could be imposed in relation to the finishing colour. However, while of a different form of covering on other elevations, the same masking of texture and definition of the historic brickwork would occur. It has also not been sufficiently justified why different finishes, which would lose the consistency of the external appearance of the building, are proposed.

The windows to be removed are not historic. Their style and form, being casement, are obviously different from the traditional sash windows on the front elevation. Though an example of how the building has evolved, they do not contribute positively to the property. They would be replaced like for like and therefore have a neutral effect on the special interest of the building. Were the appeal allowed, conditions could be imposed for final details of the replacement windows.

Given the above, I find that the proposal would fail to preserve the special interest of the listed building. Due to the extent of the works, it would lead to harm at the lower end of less than substantial harm. Nevertheless, this would be of considerable importance and weight.

The proposed works would help reduce damp and water ingress, protecting the property. However, there is little evidence to demonstrate that the proposed works are the only way to address this and that there are not less intrusive methods available which could retain the brickwork detailing. The continued viable use of the appeal property as a residential dwelling is also not dependent on the proposal as the building has an ongoing residential use that would not cease in its absence. Appeal Decision 6003329 & 6003251

Consequently, I find that the public benefits do not outweigh the harm to the designated heritage asset, the conservation of which carries great weight. As such, the proposal would fail to preserve the special historic interest of the listed building. It would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act, paragraph 210 of the Framework, and the design and heritage protection aims of Policy CP6 of the Local Plan and CP8 of the [name].

[address] Farmhouse is a [name] listed building near the site. It is likely an early 17th century 2-storey timber-framed property with render walls that has had considerable additions. There are gables and bays with a mix of casement and sash windows. Its special interest, as far as relevant to these appeals, comes in part from it being an example of a rural domestic property which retains historic features and traditional materials and its links to the agricultural history of the area.

The setting of [address] Farmhouse includes the open land and some traditional buildings such as [site address] which link back to the agricultural past of the area. But there is also considerable variation to the built form which comprises commercial, industrial buildings and modern residential properties.

Many of the elements of the scheme would not be untypical of the wider area and [address] Farmhouse is already experienced and viewed with them. The appeal property would continue to form part of the varied form in its setting and retain some of its association with the previous agricultural uses of the area. Thus, the proposal would not detract from the ability to appreciate and understand [address] Farmhouse. The setting, insofar as it contributes to it special interest would not be harmed and in this regard the scheme would satisfy the Act and paragraph 210 of the Framework.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeals should be decided other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given above the appeals should be dismissed.