Appeal 6003325

Both Appeal A and Appeal B are dismissed.

Both appeals relate to the same proposal under different but complementary legislation. To avoid duplication, I have dealt with the two schemes together, except where otherwise indicated.

As the proposal concerns a listed building located within a conservation area (CA), I have had regard to the statutory duties required by sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

During my site visit I observed two windows within the easterly elevation of the outbuilding, which do not appear on the existing or proposed plans. Although the plans are inconsistent with the building in situ, it is not a determinative matter in my consideration of the proposal.

The main issues are whether the proposal would preserve the [name] listed building ‘ [site address] ’ (Ref 1138795) or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses; and preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [name]. Appeal Decisions 6003325 and 6003326

Listed Building: [site address] is a fine example of a brick nogged timber frame building, dating from the early 17th century and was once a pair of cottages. It was first listed in 1967; and the entry was amended in 1984. Although the description does not mention the outbuilding, listings are primarily for identification purposes and do not provide an exhaustive or complete description of the special interest. An historic map dated 1963-1965 included in the appellant’s heritage evidence shows the outbuilding prior to the date of listing; and the appellant accepts that the outbuilding is curtilage listed as a matter of law.

The Council’s evidence refers to further historic mapping, which although referenced, is not before me. In summary, the Council contends that this demonstrates that the definition of the domestic curtilage and the relationship between cottage and outbuilding has changed little since the 1870s, despite historic use as a [name] in the late-19th/early-20th century. Further that the outbuilding has existed since the mid-late 19th century and was later extended. The Council considers that the outbuilding likely served as a cart shed or store with attached pigsties, tied to the adjacent field. These matters are not disputed by the appellant. In the absence of any substantive evidence to the contrary, I find no reason to consider otherwise. In any event, the main parties appear to agree that the outbuilding is a simple building, originally in agricultural use, and subordinate to the principal building.

The outbuilding is a brick-built form with a pitched roof which follows its irregular footprint. The roof tile matches that of the principal building in size, colour and pattern. Openings include a modern, wide garage door and a simple timber door. Modern, white patio doors at the southerly elevation detract from its agricultural character to some degree. The two windows within the easterly elevation (not shown on the submitted plans) are of a cottage style. Save for the garage door, these openings include simple arched brick detailing above. From the evidence before me, it is not entirely clear whether existing openings are of original design and/or proportion. Although rainwater goods are largely modern and/or of a plastic material, I saw some traditional and/or metal rainwater goods in place along the westerly elevation. A field shelter is attached to the northerly elevation, largely of timber with some corrugated sheeting.

Despite the use of some modern materials, and even if there has been some honest patch repair to brickwork, I find that the outbuilding reads as a typical small scale agricultural building of the local 19th century, in a local vernacular with simple detailing befitting its historic agricultural use. The presence of the two windows in the easterly elevation not shown on the submitted plans does not alter this finding.

Insofar as related to the appeals, the significance and special interest of the outbuilding stems largely from its historic relationship to the principal building. Of itself, it is not of great architectural merit, but its subordinate scale, form, materials and detailing serve as evidential value of its former agricultural use and demonstrate a later local vernacular.

In terms of setting, the outbuilding forms part of the immediate setting of the principal building, and it is evidence of the evolution of that setting over time. As a Appeal Decisions 6003325 and 6003326 later 19th century building of subordinate scale, simple form and design, it does not unduly detract from the immediate setting of the principal building.

Conservation Area: From the conservation area appraisal1 (CAA), the significance of the CA stems in part from its location at a natural hollow which opens out of the valley formed by [name], where a loose collection of 17th and 19th century buildings are centred at the convergence of routes. The CA includes this core and wider land to the west, where cottages and farm buildings lie in open pastureland. Hedgerows and grassy banks form a strong means of enclosure when descending into the core. These features are key characteristics of the CA which contribute to its green character and appearance and limit views into and out of the CA.

The core includes [site address] and other timber framed buildings including a public house with thatched roof at the centre, and an impressive red sandstone church in an elevated position above a tall retaining stone wall. Key views identified within the CAA include those from the elevated grounds of the Church, where benches provide an opportunity to linger in its grounds.

The CAA recognises that later 19th century buildings adjacent to the cottages in the core are of different construction and overall design, but due to their sympathetic proportions and architectural styling, they provide a coherent group. Predominant roof forms and materials for 19th Century buildings are pitched or gabled forms, small blue/red clay roof tiles and orange/brown brick.

Insofar as related to the appeals, I find the significance of the CA is primarily derived from key buildings in the historic core, with later buildings reflecting a traditional, coherent vernacular of the 19th century.

The principal building makes a strong and positive contribution to the significance of the CA, due to its timber framed form, detailing, location, elevated position, and strong degree of enclosure by hedging. The outbuilding makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA, due to its simple form and materials reflective of the later 19th Century vernacular, and its subordinate scale. The outbuilding does not appear in view when travelling through the village, due to its location at the rear of the site, together with the presence of vegetation along boundaries. However, the outbuilding and the southerly elevation of [site address] appear within key views from the grounds of the Church.

Listed Building: The proposed orangery would adjoin the southerly elevation of the outbuilding, extending its form towards the principal building. The orangery would be constructed of oak timber above a brick plinth, with extensive glazing and French doors. The roof would be flat, save for a large lantern roof light. Although the appellant suggests the proposal would be reversible, it is not sought on a temporary basis and would likely be a permanent addition of substantial construction.

The proposal would not harm any fabric of the principal building. However, I note that the proposed plans indicate the removal of a small section of the existing roof plane at the south easterly corner of the outbuilding in order to accommodate the 1 Barthomley Conservation Area Character Appraisal and [name], 2007 Appeal Decisions 6003325 and 6003326 height of the orangery. This would remove some of historic roof fabric of the outbuilding, eroding its evidential value and resulting in an awkward arrangement whereby the roof of the orangery would not fully sit under the eaves of the outbuilding.

The proposed roof form of the orangery would be in sharp contrast to the simple pitched roof form of the outbuilding. Although the use of oak timber would reflect the timber framed nature of the principal building, and extensive glazing could result in a relatively lightweight and legible addition, the proposal would fail to respect the traditional brick materials and high solid to void ratio of the existing outbuilding. Overall, it would appear as a highly domestic addition. The orangery would appear discordant to the simple form, materials and proportions of the outbuilding and its local vernacular, and it would therefore detract from the immediate setting of the principal building.

Conservation Area: The Council’s reasons for refusal do not mention the CA. Notwithstanding this, the terms ‘character’ and ‘setting’ are used. I note that the appellant suggests that the Council’s position on the CA is difficult to reconcile with its position regarding the listed building. In addition, the Council’s Conservation Officer identifies harm to the character and appearance of the CA. I am also mindful of my statutory duties.

In this case, the coherent local vernacular of later 19th Century buildings is one of the characteristics of the historic core of the CA. It logically follows that an incongruous addition to a 19th century building would harm the character or appearance of the CA. Given my finding that the proposal would not be sympathetic to the mid-19th century outbuilding, I can only find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the CA.

The fact that the proposal would be largely screened by vegetation and/or would appear in limited public view has little bearing on my consideration of the proposal. This is because listed buildings are safeguarded for their special interest irrespective of whether public views of a building can be gained; and I am duty bound to consider the effect upon the CA as a whole. In any event, the proposal would appear within a key view within the CA, from the Church grounds. Settings and views can also change with the removal of vegetation and/or when vegetation is not in leaf.

Given the above, I find that the proposal would harm the special interest of the curtilage listed building; fail to preserve or enhance the immediate setting of the principal listed building; and would harm the character or appearance of the CA.

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. Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. I find the harm to be less than substantial in this instance and at the lower end of that spectrum, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. In such circumstances, I am required to weigh this harm against the public Appeal Decisions 6003325 and 6003326 benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

There is no compelling evidence before me to demonstrate that residential or ancillary residential use is unviable or dependent on the proposal, or that such uses would cease if I were to dismiss the appeals. Nor has it been robustly demonstrated that the proposal is the only way to extend the outbuilding, nor that it would be least harmful option.

The use of high-quality materials and compliance with other development plan policies are requirements of development and not a public benefit. The use of traditional construction methods for the oak frame would assist in supporting traditional construction skills. Temporary economic benefits would arise during the construction phase. These benefits would be limited by the scale of the development. Collectively, the benefits of the proposal would not outweigh the harm that I have found, to which I am required to attach great weight.

I therefore conclude that on balance, the proposal would fail to preserve the [name] listed building ‘ [site address] ’ or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses; and would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [name]. This would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the Framework.

The proposal would conflict with [name] 1 and SE 7 of the Cheshire East Local Plan: Local Plan Strategy 2017 and with [name] 1, HER 1, HER 3, HER 4 and HOU 11 of the Cheshire East Local Plan: Site Allocations and Development Policies Document 2022. Taken together, these policies seek to ensure high-quality, sensitively designed development; that extensions are in keeping with the scale, character and appearance of their surroundings; and that development proposals protect, preserve and/or enhance listed buildings, conservations areas and their settings in accordance with national policy, taking account of effects upon significance, public benefits and relevant guidance. In respect of Appeal A, the proposed development would not be in accordance with

The main parties agree that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. On the evidence presented, I find no reason to consider otherwise. I note comments from a local resident who does not object to the proposal and appears to support the appearance of the proposed orangery. However, such support does not render the proposal acceptable.

For the above reasons and having regard to all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that the appeals should be dismissed.