Appeal 6004121

The appeal is dismissed.

As the works relate to a listed building, I have had special regard to section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve a [name] listed building, known as ‘ [site address] ’ (Ref: 1181219), and any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses.

[site address] is a two storey, detached dwelling, with basement. It is a [name] listed building, which dates back to the 18th century and has 19th century additions. The building has a historic association with [name], who invented the [name]. Smith resided in the building during the 19th century and used the ground floor as his workshop. The front elevation is finished with white weatherboarding and contains casement windows, with diamond shaped panes. The elevation facing the road is constructed of red brick, which is laid in English garden wall bond.

Based on my site visit and the evidence before me, I find that the listed building’s special interest insofar as is relevant to this appeal is derived from its historic and architectural interests as an illustration of domestic architecture from the 18 th century. The building’s surviving historic fabric, presence of traditional materials and its association with [name] make important contributions in these regards.

The proposal seeks to paint the exterior brickwork on the side elevation of the building, which faces the road. This forms part of the oldest part of the building. There is no substantive evidence before me that this wall has previously been painted.

The appellant proposes to use a breathable exterior masonry paint, which they advise is compatible with traditional substrates and is approved by English Heritage. The proposal seeks to paint the wall white and the plinth black. The appellant argues that painting the wall will protect the underlying fabric, improve its long-term durability, reduce water ingress and slow deterioration.

I appreciate that the colour and the surface texture of the existing bricks are inconsistent. Different mortars have also been used on this elevation, including cement-based mortars. I observed on my site visit some weathering to the bricks, small holes within the mortar and evidence of past repairs and former window openings.

The exposed brickwork provides evidential value of the evolution of the listed building and contributes to its special interest. I appreciate that painting this wall would provide a more uniform finish and the colour would be sympathetic to that present on the front and other side elevation. Some of the historic detailing would also remain visible through the painted surface. However, painting the wall would alter the visual appearance of this part of the building and obscure some evidence of the building’s evolution, which in turn would diminish its legibility.

The appellant argues that the selected mineral paint is fully breathable and reversible, through gentle removal methods that do not damage the substrate. However, there is no compelling evidence before me that once painted, the paint would ever be removed.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal scheme would fail to preserve the special interest of the listed building. Given the nature and extent of the proposal, I find the harm to the special interest of the listed building to be ‘less than substantial’ and at the lower end of the scale. However, this should not be equated with a less than substantial planning objection and is of considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including where appropriate, securing the asset’s optimum viable use.

The proposal would result in investment into the property, which would result in a small economic benefit, which I give limited weight in my decision as a public benefit. The appellant argues that the proposal would improve the visual appearance of the wall and integrate well into the street scene. However, I find that the existing wall preserves the character and appearance of the area and contributes to the special interest of the listed building. Accordingly, I find no public benefit in this regard. The appellant argues that the proposal would protect the underlying fabric, reduce water ingress and slow deterioration. However, there is no clear and convincing justification before me that the proposal is necessary to protect the historic fabric and I give this argument limited weight in my decision.

There is also no compelling evidence before me that the optimum viable use of the asset as a dwelling would cease in the absence of the proposal. As a result, I do not find the appeal scheme necessary to secure the viability and long-term conservation of the building.

Overall, I give the public benefits limited weight in my decision. Consequently, in attributing great weight to the harm that would be caused to the significance of the designated heritage asset, I find that there are insufficient public benefits arising from the appeal scheme to outweigh this harm.

Given the above, I conclude that, on balance, the appeal scheme would fail to preserve the special interest of the listed building. Accordingly, it would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the historic environment policies of the Framework. The proposal would also fail to comply with Policy SPO2 of the Wealden District Core Strategy Local Plan, February 2013. This policy among other things seeks to ensure that the intrinsic quality of the historic environment is protected.

I acknowledge that the Parish Council raises no objection to the proposal. However, this does not alter my findings set out above.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.