Appeal 6004169

The appeal is dismissed

The appeal is dismissed

The appeal site contains the Grade II Listed building known as Lamyatt Lodge1 (the Listed Building). Consequently, in reaching my decision, I have exercised my statutory duties under sections 66(1) and 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 – as amended (the Act).

The appeals relate to the same site and the same scheme. Unless stated otherwise, and despite the differences in the planning permission and listed building consent regimes, I have dealt with both appeals together. This is to avoid unnecessary repetition.

The description of the scheme on the application form included reference to alterations to roof purlins. However, prior to the Council’s determination of the applications, amended plans were submitted – which are subject of these appeals. 1 Official list entry number 1274169 Appeal Decisions 6004170 and 6004169 These plans indicate that existing purlins are to be retained. Therefore, and notwithstanding the description of the proposals in the banner above, these appeals are dealt with on the basis that the works and development do not include alterations to the roof purlins.

I understand that planning permission and listed building consent2 have been granted for works and development which include the formation of an en-suite to bedroom 2. Moreover, while onsite I noted that the works associated with the formation of the en-suite to bedroom 2 were well advanced. However, the ceiling of this en-suite was observed to be substantially higher than that of the associated bedroom. The height of the en-suite appears to have been secured by the removal of parts of the first-floor ceiling and ceiling joists above it. An effect of which has been to raise the floor level of that part of the attic that is above this en-suite. Although this raised floor level does not appear to be reflected in the existing plans or details submitted in support of these appeals, I proceed to determine the appeals based on the scheme indicated on the submitted plans.

The main issue is whether the development and works would preserve the Grade II Listed Building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

According to the associated official list entry, the Listed Building comprises an early 19th century house, with a large lower height wing to the rear. However, in light of the content of the heritage statement and the heritage appeal statement, I accept that much of the large rubble stone rear wing of the property is likely to have been built as a farmhouse in the 18th century, and that the formal Georgian frontage is an addition dating from the early part of the 19th Century. While the house has been subject to later alterations and additions - which have included a secondary and higher roof structure to parts of the rear wing, much of the historic fabric, including parts of the early roof structure – which is an important structural feature of the early farmhouse, and sections of early internal walls remain in-situ.

Having regard to the above, the significance of the Listed Building is mainly derived from its architectural and historic interests, as a good example of a house that has grown in size and stature over time. Important contributors in these respects are the legibility of the 2 main stages of its historic development, and the distinctive design, form and materials associated with each. It is also from its surviving historic fabric and the remaining early plan form of parts of the house.

On the basis that at least part of the Listed Building comprises a historic former farmhouse, it also gains some significance from the agricultural land that forms part of its setting.

It is imperative that proposals are accompanied by drawings and specifications of sufficient detail to illustrate and/or describe the proposed works and development. 2 Application references: 2023/1737/FUL and 2023/1738/LBC Appeal Decisions 6004170 and 6004169 This is to avoid any uncertainty over what is proposed, and to allow a robust assessment of any consequent effects. This is especially important given the building’s Grade II Listed status – a designated heritage asset of national importance.

However, the full extent and nature of the works and development that would be required to provide the attic bedroom and associated en-suite cannot be ascertained from the submitted plans and supporting information – which includes a structural methodology statement. That being the case, and even if the physical alterations that would be undertaken would relate to only a small proportion of the Listed Building, it has not been possible to comprehensively assess the effect of all the works and development on its significance.

Nevertheless, the installation of the proposed rooflights would require sections of both early and later rafters to be cut out. Furthermore, the insertion and subsequent use of the staircase between the first floor and the attic bedroom would require the removal of a portion of historic internal wall. Such operations would lead to a harmful and irreversible loss of parts of the historic fabric of the building that contribute positively to its significance as a designated heritage asset. The subdivision of the en-suite bathroom would also further erode the historic plan form of the Listed Building.

Even if works and developments have previously been authorised that have sanctioned the loss of sections of the building’s historic fabric, this does not justify the further loss and associated harm that would be caused by the implementation of the proposed scheme.

I accept that the profile of the existing roofs would be unchanged by the implementation of the scheme, and note the presence of an existing rooflight within the same side of the roof as the proposed roof-lights. However, even if the proposed rooflights would not be readily visible from publicly accessible land, they would disrupt and harmfully clutter a section of roof that broadly reflects the distinctive and simple vernacular character of the early farmhouse within the Listed Building.

The works and development subject of these appeals relate only to the house at [address]. Consequently, the contribution that the setting makes to the significance of this Listed Building would be preserved. Nevertheless, and irrespective of any additional works and development that may be required to form the en-suite bedroom and to install 2 no. rooflights and an internal staircase, the previously identified operations would harmfully erode the integrity and significance of this designated heritage asset.

In line with paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), I give great weight to the conservation of the Listed Building.

The previously identified works and development relate to a small proportion of the whole Listed Building. That being the case, the associated harm that would be caused to the significance of the Listed Building would be to the lower end of the scale of less than substantial. Nevertheless, this finding of harm carries considerable importance and weight. Appeal Decisions 6004170 and 6004169

Paragraph 215 of the Framework indicates that where a development will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the benefits of the proposal, including where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

From the evidence before me, I cannot be certain that the retained trusses and purlins would be better revealed as part of the interior of the proposed bedroom. Therefore, any associated public benefit cannot be assured.

Without the enlargement of the house, the scheme would enable the formation of an additional bedroom with an en-suite. However, the house is already large, and I do not doubt that it provides adequate living conditions. Consequently, the benefit to the appellant and to future occupiers from the enlargement and/or the enhancement of the living accommodation would mainly be a private benefit rather than a public benefit - as set out in the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance3.

Economic benefits would arise during the implementation of the scheme. However, if the works and development were not undertaken, I do not anticipate the cessation of the use of the house or that maintenance to it would cease.

Because of the modest scale of the scheme, the previously identified public benefits would be small, and very little weight is attributed to them. Overall, the public benefits would not outweigh the harm that would be caused to the significance of the Listed Building.

For the reasons given, the development and works would preserve the setting of the Grade II Listed Building. However, they would not preserve the building itself or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Consequently, the scheme would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act, and the provisions of the Framework that seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment. It would also conflict with policies DP1, DP3 and DP7 of the Local Plan4. Collectively and amongst other things, these policies seek to ensure that schemes preserve the significance of heritage assets, and contribute positively to the maintenance and enhancement of local identity. Where this would not occur, they require any related harm to be balanced against the wider benefits that would arise from the proposal.

It is understood that the appeal site is within the catchment area for the [name] and Moors Ramsar site (the Ramsar site). However, given my findings on the main issue, further consideration of the effect of the scheme on the Ramsar site would serve little purpose.

The Railings on Roadside to Frontage of [address] are also [name] Listed5 (the Railings). The significance of this heritage asset is mainly derived from its historic and architectural interest. However, it also gains some significance from its group value with [address], and from the contribution the house at [address] makes to its setting. The main parties agree that the appeal scheme would not affect the significance of the Railings, and I have no reason to find otherwise. 3 Paragraph: 020 [name]: 18a-020-20190723 4 Mendip District Council – Mendip District Local Plan 2006-2029 Part 1: Strategy and Policies – adopted December 2014 5 Official list entry number: 1059185 Appeal Decisions 6004170 and 6004169 That being the case, the setting of the Railings would be preserved, and its significance would not be harmed by the proposed works and development. However, this is a neutral consideration.

The development subject of appeal A would conflict with the development plan as a whole, and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweigh the identified harm and associated development plan conflict. I therefore conclude that this appeal should be dismissed.

Moreover, and for the reasons previously given, I also conclude that appeal B should be dismissed.