Appeal 6003981

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

The appeals concern the same site and the same scheme. Although the remit of planning permission (Appeal A) and listed building consent (Appeal B) regimes are different, to reduce repetition, I have dealt with both appeals together in a single decision letter.

The appeal property is a [name] listed building located in a conservation area. I have therefore had regard to the statutory duties under sections (s) 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990 (the Act).

For Appeal B, the decision notice refers only to the requirements of s66(1) of the Act. However, this section of the Act concerns ‘whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting.’ As this appeal concerns ‘whether to grant listed building consent for any works’, it is required to be assessed against s16(2) of the Act. I have therefore determined the appeal on this basis. As the requirements of s66(1) and s16(2) of the Act are the same, namely, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, I consider that the interests of no party have been prejudiced by this approach.

Also for Appeal B, whilst the decision notice and the Council’s officer report refers to the purported harmful effect of the proposed works on the character and appearance of the conservation area, the decision notice does not cite conflict with s72(1) of the Act. Nevertheless, I have a duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area in accordance with the statutory duty set out in s72(1) of the Act. Since this matter has already been addressed by the parties in relation to Appeal A, I am satisfied my consideration of it in relation to Appeal B would not be prejudicial to any party.

The main issues in both appeals are whether the proposal would preserve the [name] listed building, [site address] , known as ‘ [site address] West’1, or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses; and whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Brackley Town Centre Conservation Area.

The Grade II listed [site address] is an end two-storey dwelling attached to, but slightly set back from [address] (No 50). It fronts the north side of [address] behind a low stone wall. The main entrance to the dwelling is on the side elevation facing the property’s driveway and a high stone wall that surrounds neighbouring [address] School. [site address] is constructed of coursed limestone and the carved stone entrance door lintel is dated 1897. It includes multiple mullion windows, two tall decorative brick chimneys and a projecting stone string course. The primary front elevation includes a gabled projecting front bay which is canted at ground floor level and is a corbelled, squared bay at first floor level. The list entry notes the building was listed in September 1998 and that it also has group value with No 50, [address] School and the stone wall adjoining the driveway.

The rear elevation of [site address] possesses less detail than the front and side elevations and has been previously extended at ground floor level with a sizeable pitch roof extension linked to an earlier flat roof addition. The pitch roof extension incorporates a modern timber glazed bay at the rear and a substantial-sized chimney stack at the side. A detached part stone, part brick garage has also been erected close to the rear extensions.

Whilst these additions increase the footprint of the dwelling, they are single storey and consequently appear subservient to the main part of the building. Therefore, even though the listed building has been altered in the past, its overall historic form remains legible.

From the evidence before me, the special interest and significance of the listed building insofar as it relates to these appeals, is mainly attributed to its architectural and historic interest as a good example of a local domestic property 1 National Heritage List for England, list entry number 1376511 from the 19th century. Important contributing factors in this regard are the use of traditional methods of construction and materials, the building’s surviving historic fabric and the legibility of its historic plan form.

The driveway, long rear garden, part of [address] fronting [site address] , the adjacent [address] School and its imposing surrounding stone wall, along with the historic terraced row attached to [site address] , all provide the primary surroundings within which the listed building is experienced. These surroundings allow the building’s architectural composition and historic value to be appreciated within an edge of town context. Thus, the listed building’s immediate setting also, in part, supports its special interest and significance.

[site address] is located in the Brackley Town Centre Conservation Area (the CA). Its character and appearance are largely shaped by an extensive collection of historic buildings lining a broad central street, with long, narrow burgage plots extending behind. The Brackley Town Centre Conservation Appraisal, adopted July 2012, notes that Brackley is one of only two towns in the county where a medieval planned town was developed at a distance from the earlier village from which it takes its name.

From the evidence before me, the special interest and significance of the CA are largely derived from the evolution of a medieval market town and the preservation of its historic centre, street pattern and burgage plots, along with the architectural richness and variety of its historic buildings. [site address] adds considerably to Brackley’s historic and aesthetic charm. In doing so it positively contributes to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole and thereby to its significance as a designated heritage asset.

The proposal would introduce a first-floor over an existing single storey extension and include a two-storey glazed extension to connect this to the main house. Internal works are also proposed.

Cumulatively, the proposal would be of considerable bulk. It would result in a two-storey rearward spread of built form. The proposed first floor extension to create an additional bedroom with en-suite would introduce a first floor room of similar size to the depth of the main house. This, combined with the two-storey nature of the glazed link would undermine the building’s modest historic proportions, particularly at first floor level.

Furthermore, although an existing single-storey flat roof building links the main part of the building to other extensions, the addition of the glazed link would mean that almost the entire width of the ground-floor rear elevation of the main building would be covered. Moreover, as a result of the overall height and width of the proposal, it would obscure much of a projecting gable and mullion window on the building’s rear elevation. In so doing, it would interrupt the building’s first floor composition and symmetry. These elements are key architectural features of the building, and their form and design are fundamental to the building’s layout and narrative.

The eaves height of the proposed first floor extension is below that of the main house and the glazed link has a lower eaves and ridge height than the projecting gables. Nonetheless, the ridge height of the first floor extension is the same as the existing projecting gables. Given its overall size and scale, the proposal would, unlike the previous rear additions, cumulatively result in a lack of subservience. It would overwhelm the listed building insofar as it would be an overly dominant addition that would diminish its historic form and layout.

[name] recognise the design intentions of the glazed link insofar as it would form a clear contrasting feature between the main house and the extension, given its excessive height, it would draw the eye and be a wholly incongruous and discordant feature. The metal glazing bars within the glazed structure would introduce a jarring vertical emphasis when compared to the building’s predominantly horizontally aligned fenestration. For the most part, the overall form and mix of materials results in an overly complex design. Consequently, while the glazed link would clearly be a contemporary addition, it would be a distracting feature, which would further erode the pleasing form and architecture of the building.

The glazed link would create some separation between the existing extension and the historic part of the building and allow views through it. However, the presence of the staircase would likely prevent meaningful views through the extension obscuring views and the ability to appreciate the building. Views of the exposed fabric would be primarily internalised.

No internal opening would be created on the main house at first floor level. However, the insertion of an opening to facilitate access to the glazed link and an opening to facilitate access to the cloak room at ground floor level would result in a harmful loss of historic fabric and alter the historic plan-form of the building. In addition, no details have been submitted regarding any structural intervention required as part of the installation of the glazed link, or the creation of the new openings. These omissions are a concern when assessing the effects of the proposal on the special interest and significance of this designated heritage asset, and compound my concerns set out above.

Taken together, the proposal would harmfully erode the historic and architectural integrity of the listed building and would not conserve it in a manner appropriate to its significance.

The Council suggest the chimney stack on the side elevation of the existing extension is a positive feature but also note that it is modern and non-typical in design. Although the information available to me suggests the chimney stack was present at the time the building was listed in 1998, I find its design is somewhat at odds with the aesthetics of the main building and in my view, its loss would have a neutral effect on the overall appearance of the listed building.

I note the appellant’s comments that part of the proposal would be constructed in natural materials, the pitch of the roof would reflect that of the projecting gables, and the inharmonious timber bay window on the rear elevation of the existing extension would be removed. Be that as it may, none of these factors would compensate for the identified harm or sufficiently justify the proposal.

I acknowledge that historic properties can be successfully modified where possible to accommodate modern standards of living. However, this must be done sympathetically with a view to preserving the significance of the heritage asset, in accordance with the statutory duty. For the reasoning I have set out, the proposal would result in clear harm to the listed building.

Whilst the glazed link would be inset slightly, views of it, and the proposal as a whole would clearly be visible in public views along [address], albeit fleetingly. I note several long and narrow burgage plots in the CA provide views of buildings within the rear spaces of frontage plots and [site address] is typical in this regard. However, due to the scale of the proposal, it would stand out as a prominent and discordant form of development and works. It also follows that if the special interest of a listed building within a conservation area is materially diminished, as a consequence the character and appearance of that conservation area as a whole are also similarly incrementally harmed.

Therefore, as the proposal would undermine the special interest and integrity of the listed building, I also find it would be harmful to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole, by diminishing the historic and architectural qualities of a building that contributes positively to it.

Drawing all of the above together, I find that the proposal would fail to preserve the listed building and fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA as a whole. This would be contrary to the requirements of s16(2), s66(1) and s72(1) of the Act. As a result, the proposal would harm the significance of these designated heritage assets.

In finding harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and Planning Practice Guidance requires the magnitude of that harm to be articulated. Given the nature and extent of the proposal, I find there would be a low level of ‘less than substantial’ harm to the significance of the listed building. The harm to the CA as a whole would also be at the low end of ‘less than substantial’. Nevertheless, such harm is of considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, which includes securing the asset’s optimum viable use.

Economic benefits would be brought about through the construction phase and the general investment into the property. Additionally, social benefits would be generated through improvements to the local housing stock. These outcomes would assist the delivery of the main objectives of the planning system as outlined in the Framework but, given the householder scale of the proposal, would be attributed limited positive weight.

Nonetheless, the primary outcomes of the proposal, namely the modification of the building to allow for and additional bedroom and open plan living with direct access to the rear garden, would be solely of private benefit to the appellant. Moreover, no compelling evidence is before me which confirms that the property would not be useable or viable as a dwelling or that its future would be at risk if the appeals were to fail and the proposal, as submitted, was not implemented. In these respects, the identified harm to the significance of the listed building has not been clearly and convincingly justified.

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, the proposal would not preserve the [name] listed building, [site address] , known as ‘ [site address] West’, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. It would also fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA as a whole. This would be contrary to the requirements of the Act and the provisions within the Framework which seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment. It would also conflict with Policy BN5 of the [name] Local Plan (Part 1), adopted December 2014 and Policies SS2 and HE5 of the [name] 2 Local Plan 2011-2029, adopted July 2020. Together, these policies, amongst other things, seek that the historic environment is conserved and enhanced and that development is of an appropriate scale, form, design and materials compatible with the character of the building.

In relation to Appeal A, information submitted with the appeal indicate [site address] is close to other [name] listed buildings, namely, the adjacent stone wall2, [address] School3 and No 504 are [name] listed buildings. Mindful of the statutory duties set out in s66(1) of the Act, I have had special regard to preserving the settings of these listed buildings.

From the information before me and my own observations, I find the special interest and significance of the stone wall largely stems from its historic and architectural interests as a traditionally constructed high stone enclosure of the grounds of a former [address]. The special interest and significance of [address] School is mainly derived from its historic and architectural interests as an Elizabethan-style manor built for the 3rd Earl of Ellesmere. Its age, surviving traditional fabric and fine architectural detailing together with its group value with the surrounding stone wall and its focal point to the local community as part of the local scene are factors that make a positive contribution to its special interest.

No 50 is attached to, and noted in the list entry for its group value with, the appeal property. It is of squared rubble construction and includes 6 small but decorative dormers and a first-floor oriel canted bay window on the front elevation over a carriageway. Insofar as relevant to the appeal and from the evidence, these factors contribute to its special interest and significance. The public routes and verdant spaces, both public and private, that are in proximity to these designated heritage assets, provide the space to experience them and appreciate their special interest.

Given the location of the proposal in relation to these designated heritage assets, I find that the settings of these assets would be preserved and their significance would not be harmed. This would meet the statutory presumption set out in section 66(1) of the Act and the provisions in the Framework regarding the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment. I also note that the Council did not consider any effects in these regards sufficiently harmful to justify a reason for refusal on this basis. 2 National Heritage List for England, list entry name: [name], [address] ([address] School). List entry number: 1294031 3 National Heritage List for England, list entry name: [address] ([address] School). List entry number: 1371784 4 National Heritage List for England, list entry name:.48 and 50, [address]. List entry number: 1371785

I acknowledge that there was engagement with the Council prior to submission of the applications and the proposal was amended in response to officer advice. However, the reasons for the eventual officer recommendations and decisions are clearly set out in the [name] and communications prior to that point do not have a bearing on my consideration of the main issues, as set out above.

Appeal A: The proposal would conflict with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B: For the reasons given, I conclude that Appeal B is dismissed.