Appeal 6003477

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council does not object to the rear dormer window or the alterations to the roof and fenestration of the existing rear extension. From my site visit those elements of the proposal would assimilate to an acceptable standard with the surrounding area, where rear alterations to properties of varying types are not visible from public areas.

The proposed development relates to the setting of listed buildings and lies within a conservation area. Accordingly, I have had regard to the statutory duties set out in sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the property and the surrounding area; and • whether the proposed development would preserve the significance of a non-designated heritage asset, preserve the setting of an adjacent [name] listed building, and the extent to which the development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Padbury Conservation Area.

[name] is a village lane comprising a broad mix of detached, semi-detached and terrace housing with typically generous, although varied, separation distances between them. Through these gaps open sky and verdant gardens beyond can typically be seen. As such, they contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area. Buildings are mostly faced in brick, render or stone, along with some timber framing. In limited cases, these principal materials are supplemented with dark close-boarded cladding.

The appeal development seeks to extend the house sideways. It would be set back from the front elevation, as well as down from the eaves and ridge line, and faced in dark, vertical, close board timber cladding. Despite being setback and down, the extension would be highly visible from the street. It would infill a significant portion of the characterful gap between the appeal property and neighbour at [address]. The width of the extension, in combination with its height would be uncharacteristic of the street’s established built form and unsympathetic to the host property. The prominent introduction of such a large amount of timber cladding would further accentuate the form of the extension.

In making my decision, I have had regard to the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan Design Supplementary Planning Document (2023) ([name]). It requires development to give consideration to gaps in the street scene, ensuring that their extent is determined by the pattern of development in the area. Whilst a gap would remain in this proposal, it would be greatly reduced and not characteristic of the more typical open character of the lane. I acknowledge the set back of the extension, but this would not be sufficient in overcoming the harm I have identified in respect of its width and the depletion of the spacing between buildings in the street.

I note the ‘barn-style’ design has been employed in order to reduce the massing of the extension down to 1.5 storeys. I also acknowledge that chimney stacks and existing windows would be retained within the appeal property. However, the extension would still be prominent and would not be read as subservient to the host property. Its minimal design, with only two small windows to the front, gives the proposal greater solidity and dominance both over the host property and wider area. This is made more so by the contrasting darkness of the timber finish.

On my site visit, and as highlighted by the appellant, I saw the use of dark timber cladding along the lane, including at 14 [name] and The Robin Hood. The use of this cladding on these properties is limited to subordinate extensions that are either narrower or lower. This is in marked contrast with the appeal proposal that is considerably larger. Ultimately, the existence of those other extensions has not led me to an alternative conclusion on this main issue.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the property and surrounding area. As such, it conflicts with Policy BE2 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) (2021), which requires, amongst other matters, for development to respect the physical characteristics of the site and its surroundings. Heritage assets - special interest and significance

The adjacent building, comprising [address] and 17 [name] ([address]), is a grade II listed building1 (LB) and dates from the 17th and 18th centuries respectively. It consists of a two-storey thatched structure of whitewashed brickwork with timber framing in the older parts, including that closest to the appeal site. The building’s significance is primarily derived from its age and early traditional form of construction. The timber framing to the flank holds equal significance and interest to that on the front of the building.

Pertinent to this appeal, the building’s special interest and significance are also derived, in part, from its setting. The setting is contained to this immediate section of [name] and the generous spacing found around the building. It is from here that the building is best appreciated. The spaces either side of the building retain visibility around it (in semi-isolation), preserving clear views of the entire composition (including its entire flank elevations) without interruption. This is typical of many of the early houses of this type throughout the village. Whilst set forwards of the LB, the existing house on the appeal site retains a generous gap that is significant to the LB’s setting.

Hedging and other vegetation is also characteristic of the buildings setting. The young hedge along the shared boundary, forming a low and sparce boundary treatment, does not diminish the space afforded to the building and contributes to its significance in this rural village setting.

The appeal building stands within the Padbury Conservation Area (CA), along a road linked to the historic core. The significance of the CA is in part derived from its early origins as a former agricultural settlement, characterised by a variety of architecture from various periods and mostly consisting of a mix of different housing. Development typically comprises low density, with generous separation and spacing between buildings with views out into the surrounding countryside.

The Council’s Conservation Are Appraisal (CAA notes that the appeal site falls within the Old End Identity Area and forms part of a slightly denser group of later 19th century buildings that are smaller and more regular in scale and proportion. The site however is on the edge of this group and interfaces with older more spacious development. The appeal site and the space around it is characteristic of and contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole.

The appeal site is identified as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA) (referred to locally as a Local Note Building). Within the CAA it is described as a pair of two-storey, semi-detached cottages with a shallow pitch slate gable roof, with central and end brick chimney stacks and is rendered with pebbledash. Furthermore, the CAA notes the prominence of the pair in identified views. Their combined significance is that of a symmetrical pair of houses which contribute positively to 1 Listed Building Entry Number: 1232167 the special character and street scene of the CA due to their 19th century form and good symmetry. Heritage assets - appeal proposal and effects

The proposal would infill a significant portion of the gap between the host building and the flank elevation of [address]. Due to the step in the building line, the setting back of the extension from the front of the host house would not benefit the LB which would still be broadly in line with it. Therefore, it would encroach upon views of the flank elevation on the approach along [name], diminishing the ability to appreciate the significance of the LB. The LB would no longer appear to stand apart from its neighbours with full historic separation, other than when viewed in close quarters. This encroachment would weaken the contribution that the setting makes to the significance of the LB.

Whilst a degree of infill has been established through previous planning history, the approval does not enclose the LB to the same extent as the appeal scheme by virtue of its size. An extant application for a single-storey extension, reference 23/01654/APP, whilst broadly in a similar location is substantially lower and narrower when viewed from the street and therefore impacts far less on the openness of the LB’s setting, compared with the appeal scheme.

I note from the evidence before me that there was more established vegetation along the common boundary in the past. Vegetation offers a varied and changing component to setting and a building’s enclosure. Unlike that of built form, and as demonstrated here, the life cycle of vegetation can also result in its loss, thereby restoring greater openness to setting. The past presence of greater screening has not led me to an alternative conclusion on this main issue.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would fail to preserve the setting of the adjacent [name] listed building. As such the proposed development would be contrary to the requirements of Section 66(1) of the Act.

The infilling of the space to the side of the host building with this extension would partially enclose the open views between these buildings. The appellant has suggested that the proposed extension is narrower than the main frontage of the house and is set back. Be that as it may, I note that its width and height would still significantly enclose the space. I observed on site that the proposal would be clearly visible from the public aspect of [name] in both directions, reducing separation between built form and thereby harming the wider character and appearance of the CA.

On my site visit, as highlighted by the appellant, I saw a number of houses throughout the CA, both on historic and modern development, that had components of blackened timber cladding. I am also aware of an approved scheme at [address], although I have only limited information before me in this respect. Taken in isolation, I do not consider its use to be uncharacteristic of the CA. However, the extent and application of it varies in scale and context. Largely it is found in small additions and alterations to the side of buildings, expressing discrete architectural forms that are subordinate to the host property. Examples put to me and seen on site were either typically small, low, or substantially to the rear of the host property so as to reflect building hierarchy. This is in marked contrast with the appeal proposal which would introduce a sizable area of dark timber cladding that would, when viewed obliquely, appear dominant and in strong contrast to the brickwork and render of the immediate surrounding environs of the CA. Ultimately, the existence of those other examples of cladding has not led me to an alternative conclusion on this main issue.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Padbury Conservation Area, contrary to the requirements of Section 72(1) of the Act.

The appeal extension is wide, and despite the reduced eaves and roof ridge, would be dominant over the host property. Furthermore, with it being positioned so close to the front elevation, it would unbalance the symmetry of the pair of houses.

The use of dark timber cladding on such a large side addition would be visually distracting to this building. Both the extent of the cladding as well as its strong tonal and architectural contrast would cause harm to the houses. Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would fail to preserve the significance of this non-designated heritage asset.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the NPPF) advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to their conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of those assets or from development within their setting and that this should have a clear and convincing justification. Given my findings above, and the extent of the proposed development, I find the harm to be less than substantial in this instance, and at the lower end of the spectrum. This harm is nevertheless of considerable importance and weight.

Under such circumstances, paragraph 215 of the NPPF advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, which includes the securing of the optimal viable use of the heritage assets. The NPPF also sets out that the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the

The increased quantum of living space to make the house less cramped, as put to me by the appellant, is acknowledged. However, this would be a private benefit to the appellant, or future occupiers, that does not provide clear and convincing justification for allowing the appeal. I also acknowledge that there would be some economic benefits through the construction phase. Nevertheless, this would be limited by the extent and nature of the proposed development. Moreover, the continued viable use of the appeal property (a non-listed building) as a residential dwelling is not dependent on the proposal as the building has an ongoing residential use that would not cease in its absence.

Overall, the weight that I ascribe to the public benefits that would accrue from the proposal, is not sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and weight that I attach to the harm I have found. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development would fail to preserve the setting of the adjoining [name] listed building and the character or appearance of the CA. There would also be harm to the significance of a non-designated heritage asset. The proposed development would be contrary to the requirements of sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Act and policy BE1 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan (VALP) (2021). This policy requires, amongst other matters, for development to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance.

My attention has been drawn to the appeal sites planning history, in particular application 22/03701/APP. This application, whilst of a similar nature to the appeal case was withdrawn. Therefore, whilst I note the design evolution undertaken between the two schemes, I have not taken it into consideration in making my

The appellant sets out that the scheme would meet other planning objectives, including in respect of living conditions, highway safety, biodiversity and flooding. However, a lack of harm is effectively neutral in my determination of the appeal.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal proposals would conflict with the development plan as a whole and that there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.