Appeal 6003973

The appeal is allowed and listed building consent is granted for internal alterations to bathroom at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application [name]/2023/0940/LB and the plans submitted with it.

As the proposal is in a conservation area and relates to a listed building I have had special regard to sections 16(2) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act).

I observed that the works proposed have already taken place. As such, the appeal considers the effect of retention of those works. Accordingly, conditions are not necessary in this instance.

The Council did not identify any harm in respect of the effect of the works on the character or appearance of Warberries Conservation Area. Given the modest scale of the works and lack of prominence from the public realm, I find that the character and appearance of Warberries Conservation Area is preserved.

The Council’s evidence includes details of a [name] listed building known as ‘[name] to Nos [address]’ (Ref 1219399). The Council did not identify harm to the significance of this or any features of its special architectural or historic interest as a result of the appeal scheme. On the evidence before me, including my own observations, I am satisfied that the works preserve the special interest of that asset.

The appeal property is a [name]* listed building, known as “1-15, Wellswood Park Road” (Ref: 1206876) (the LB). In that context, the main issue is the effect of the works, that have already been completed, on the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building.

The LB dates from 1853 to the designs of Harvey brothers, comprising 3 terraces of 5 houses arranged around a private park. These two storey houses have a single pitched roof to the road side, and a double pitched roof on the larger, park side of the building. This distinctive form historically created a light well to central rooms that was not visible externally. This is likely to have been to facilitate service accommodation within the smaller road side accommodation and a sense of separation from the larger principal accommodation overlooking the park.

The houses are said now to have largely been divided into apartments. This is the case for No 8 which comprises a ground floor apartment. It is evident that the internal layout has consequently undergone considerable modification to accommodate this subdivision. Nonetheless, No 8 retains some sense of the historic hierarchy of its internal spaces. For example, bedroom 2 is more modest in size relative to bedroom 1. It is also accessed from a corridor off the hall and has modest windows fronting on to the road. Its size, location and fenestration is thus consistent with it having historically been part of the service accommodation. Whereas bedroom 1 has large vertical windows facing onto the rear garden and park, consistent with its historic status as the principal accommodation. [name] design features of the larger rooms also remain, such as cornices with intricate detailing.

Consequently, insofar as it relates to this appeal, the special interest of the LB is primarily associated with the hierarchy of its internal spaces as evidenced by the differing bedroom sizes and the differing scale of fenestration between the road and park side elevations. Together with its remaining historic detailing, this is characteristic of the LB as an example of high status Victorian terraced housing designed by locally renowned architects.

The appeal scheme comprises the subdivision of the former en-suite bathroom to bedroom 1, to accommodate separate en-suite bathrooms for bedroom 1 and bedroom 2. Further subdivision of that room provides a utility room that is accessed from the hall. This is said to involve the reinstatement of a door into the bathroom from bedroom 2, and a door opening from the hall into the utility room.

Reference is made to the planning history for the appeal building. This includes listed building consent granted in 1990 ([name]/1990/1169) (the 1990 consent). This shows consent having been granted for a similar scheme for subdivision of the same space into two en-suite bathrooms. The ground floor plan for that consent also shows a door from the hall into a cupboard in the same location as the door now providing access to the utility room.

Reference is also made to a subsequent consent that included removing the subdivision of the bathroom to create one larger bathroom ([name]/2009/1046) (the 2009 consent). The existing plan for the 2009 consent shows ensuite bathrooms for bedroom 1 and bedroom [address], but with a different line of subdivision than is being sought through this appeal. That existing plan does not show the cupboard accessed from the hall that was approved by the 1990 consent. As such, it is unclear whether or not that part of the 1990 consent was implemented. Also on the 2009 consented scheme, the location of the door from bedroom 2 to the en-suite does not appear consistent with the location of the door for which consent is currently sought.

Nevertheless, it is clear that there has been considerable work undertaken within No 8, as part of its original conversion into an apartment and through previously consented alterations. For example, the existing layout for the 2009 consent refers to a niche located within a concealed full height window opening located between the dining room and kitchen. This indicates that there may historically have been a window in this location, marking the separation between the principal and service accommodation. Whereas, the kitchen and dining area are now separated by folding doors. Similarly, it is also likely that a historic opening existed between the bathroom and bedroom 2, in the vicinity of the door now providing access from bedroom 2 to the ensuite bathroom.

In any event, I find that the appeal scheme does not harm the ability to appreciate the historic hierarchy of its internal spaces, with the differentiation in bedroom sizes and external fenestration remaining unchanged. Furthermore, given the extent of alterations already undertaken, aside from those sought through this appeal, I find that the appeal scheme does not result in the loss of historic fabric to the extent that it materially harms the significance of the LB.

Therefore, the effect of the appeal scheme on the special interest of the LB is neutral and its historic interest is preserved. This satisfies the requirements of the Act, paragraph 210(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework).

For the above reasons and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.