Appeal 6004202

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs has been made by Simon Hartley Sasa Limited against Leeds City Council. An application for costs has also been made by Leeds City Council against Simon Hartley Sasa Limited. These applications are the subject of two separate Decisions.

Some of the works that form part of the application that is the subject of this appeal have already been carried out, notably the single storey extension which has been partially constructed. I am aware that planning permission for the single storey side extension and associated external alterations including the insertion of a new window in the front elevation and the reinstatement of a blocked up first floor window has been approved under reference 24/03166/FU.

However the extension as constructed is not the same as that applied for under the appeal scheme and shown on the submitted plans. I saw at my site inspection that the window that has been inserted into the building’s eastern elevation (in the single storey side element) is larger than that shown on the plans. In the absence of any explanation regarding this matter, and given the importance of these details in the context of the listed status of the building of which the appeal property forms a part, I confirm that I have considered the proposed development and works as shown on the plans rather than what has actually been built.

As the works relate to a listed building, I have had special regard to sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

The main issue is whether the proposed works would preserve the [name] listed building, [name], [address] and [name] (Ref:

and any of the features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses.

The appeal property is part of the listed building at [name], [address] and [name], which itself is part of a wider group of four [name] listed buildings and associated curtilage listed structures, that together make up the historic [name] farm complex. The appeal property is the farmhouse that occupies the eastern range of the listed building and dates to 1810. It is a substantial two storey dwelling built of stone with a slate roof and is constructed in four bays displaying an attractive front (east) elevation.

The appeal building maintains its historic character, scale and proportions as well as some remaining elements of its historic fabric, traditional internal architectural features and planform. As a result, the building retains its attractive rural character and charm as a higher status dwelling with a traditional vernacular design. It also includes internal features and a domestic layout and room proportions typical of its rural location and commensurate with its historic use as a farmhouse. Thus, its historic character is still legible.

The appellant considers that the appeal building and the complex overall is recognised for its architectural and group value only, and argues that the statutory list description does not identify its internal planform as a contributor to significance. However, listings are primarily for identification purposes and do not provide an exhaustive or complete description of the special interest of a building.

The appellant also contends that given the appeal property’s history of rental use and incremental alterations that have taken place, the current layout is a result of functional evolution and there is no evidence to demonstrate that it represents a coherent or intact historic planform or one that is unaltered. No further details are given as to what the incremental alterations are, how the first floor of the appeal property is likely to have been altered in the past, or to identify which elements are not historic. This being so, I see no reason to doubt the Council’s view that the first floor layout of the appeal property is historic.

Additionally, the appellant has provided a report from [name] which states that the existing timber sash windows at the appeal property are not original. Although no further details are given, the [name] explains that the windows are not considered to be original due to evidence of non-traditional fixings, inconsistent joinery details, altered sections and repairs inconsistent with early Georgian fabric. Nevertheless, it remains that the windows are of some age incorporating traditional materials and design and form part of the historic fabric of the building.

Thus, from the evidence before me, insofar as it relates to this appeal, I therefore find that the special interest of the listed building is drawn from its surviving historic fabric including its historic timber windows, as well as from its internal layout including the scale and proportions of the rooms and its distinctive internal features including the fireplaces. All these elements attest to its historic function as a higher order rural dwelling associated with farming, and are important to the special interest of the building in terms of this appeal.

As set out above, notwithstanding my observations on site, the proposed works include a single storey side extension which has the benefit of planning permission and to which the Council raises no objections.

The proposed works also include changes to the appeal property’s first floor layout to provide a fourth bedroom (by subdividing existing bedroom 3 and reducing the size of the existing bathroom) and to create two new ensuite bathrooms to existing bedrooms 1 and 2. These works include the removal of part of the existing bathroom wall where it adjoins existing bedroom 3 and the insertion of new partition walls in each of the existing bedrooms.

The works would significantly alter the size and arrangement of the first floor rooms at the appeal property. Although the appellant refers to features and circulation routes that would be retained, in practical terms the proposed works would see changes to the proportions and layouts of all the first floor rooms. A greater number of smaller more awkward shaped rooms would be created, completely at odds with the simple historic proportions of the spacious rooms. As such, the historic layout and distinctive planform of the first floor would be lost as would the relationship between the rooms and their hierarchy within the building.

In compromising the spatial qualities and distinctive proportions of the rooms, the proposed subdivisions would also disrupt the relationship of the existing rooms to their principal internal features including their fireplaces and windows. Whilst these (and the chimney breasts) would not be obscured or concealed, the partitions would be introduced in distracting juxtaposition to these historic features and detract from them visually. As a result the internal balance and rhythm of the rooms and their internal relationships with these important features would be seriously disrupted. This would be particularly so in new bedroom 3 in terms of the relationship of the newly formed room (new bedroom 4) with the fireplace, and in existing bedroom 2 where the ensuite would upset the almost square proportions of the room and undermine the fireplace as a central feature.

The building’s internal arrangement and layout is intrinsic to its character as a farmhouse, and as set out above, I have seen no evidence that it has been altered in the past. Whilst by their nature the partitions would be reversible, they would nevertheless alter the building’s historic planform by subdividing the existing rooms into clearly separate and smaller rooms that would visually challenge existing internal features. As a result the building’s characteristic room arrangement would be lost at first floor level and its historic layout would be undermined. Additionally, the proposed demolition of part of the bathroom wall would mean that some historic fabric would also be lost.

[name] find that the internal works as proposed would erode the character of the building and diminish its historic interest thereby impairing its historic legibility. In coming to this view I have had regard to the appellant’s Heritage Impact Assessment which was submitted as part of the appeal, and the appellant’s stated mitigation and design response.

The proposed works also include the replacement of all the historic windows within their existing openings, including to the appeal property’s eastern elevation which is the primary formal frontage to the farmhouse. The Council requested a detailed window condition survey to justify the loss of historic fabric. The report from [name] states that the windows have experienced deterioration over time and exhibit extensive timber decay, warping and mechanical failure which has rendered them beyond reasonable repair. Due to the severity of these issues it is concluded that they are no longer capable of maintaining the building’s structural integrity and do not function efficiently in terms of thermal performance and weather tightness. The Window Condition Clarification Note also refers to the windows being beyond reasonable or economical repair and indicates that repair would necessitate near total replacement of components resulting in no meaningful retention of historic fabric.

That said, neither of these documents includes a detailed survey of the condition of each of the windows that allows proper consideration of their significance, condition or the precise nature of the repairs that would be necessary to each of them. As set out in the conservation officer’s comments, I would expect such a survey to identify the fitting and location of each window that is to be replaced, include a clear set of photographs for each window fitting, identify their age and significance, evidence their defects and clearly show and explain why they are beyond repair.

In the absence of such a survey, there is no compelling evidence before me to explain why the existing windows, which are traditional and longstanding features of the building’s important primary frontage and form part of its historic fabric, cannot be retained in the first instance. This being so, even appreciating that the replacement windows would be of matching proportions, materials and details to the existing windows (and commensurate with the reinstated window W15 to which the Council raises no objections), I cannot be satisfied that the complete replacement of all the windows is justified. [name] find that this element of the proposed works would result in the unnecessary loss of historic fabric, which would have an adverse effect on the character and significance of the building.

A number of other concerns are raised by the Council. These include the lack of details as to the proposed internal wall insulation and linings at ground and first floor level. No detailed specification of the materials intended or drawings to show how these works would relate to the internal features of the rooms (including the architraves, timber panelling, skirtings and fireplace surrounds for example) or to demonstrate how any such features would be protected, have been provided. Additionally concerns are raised about the lack of information relating to the significance of the existing fireplaces particularly at ground floor level, and the potential for historic fabric to exist beneath modern finishes and to be harmed or lost. Furthermore, in response to comments from the conservation officer the appellant now seeks to reinstate the first floor ceilings (which have been removed in some of the rooms to expose the existing oak trusses and purlins as part of previously proposed works). However, insufficient details have been provided to determine whether these would be reinstated at their former height.

These additional matters mean that the potential for further harm over and above that relating to the windows and internal first floor layout I have identified cannot be ruled out. Accordingly these matters add to my concerns.

Taking all these factors into account, I find that the proposed works would lead to an unjustified loss of the characteristic historic windows and their associated historic fabric. Additionally the proportions and character of the internal arrangements of its first floor rooms would be unacceptably altered, and the proposed works also have the potential to impact further on the building’s internal features and historic fabric. This being so, whilst the proposed works would retain the appeal building’s subservient relationship with the principal house at [name] which also forms part of the listed building, I find overall that for the reasons given, the proposed works would serve to impair the listed building’s historic legibility, reduce its authenticity and fail to preserve its special interest.

The appellant argues that some elements of the proposed works would improve the heritage asset and contribute to its significance. Reference is made to the reinstatement and repair of historic features that are currently concealed or neglected, including the opening up and restoration of fireplaces and the reinstatement and revealing of historic features currently obscured. Additionally in bringing the appeal property back into active residential use, the proposed works would improve the appearance of the listed building overall. However, I am not persuaded that these works would improve the architectural and historic significance of the building to the extent that they would be sufficient to outweigh the harm to the listed building that I have identified.

I therefore conclude on the main issue that the proposed works would fail to preserve the special interest of the listed building. I give this harm considerable importance and weight in the balance of this appeal.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises at paragraph 212 that when considering the impact of a proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s 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.

I find the harm to be less than substantial in this instance but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires that less than substantial harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) recognises that putting heritage assets to a viable use is likely to lead to investment in their maintenance necessary for their long term conservation. The parties are agreed that that optimum viable use of the appeal property is as a dwelling, but there is disagreement as to whether the alternatives of a three bedroom or a four bedroom configuration is the optimum viable use.

The appellant contends that the proposed works seek to secure the long term viable use of an empty and deteriorating building, represent the optimum viable use of the listed building and are necessary to secure its long term occupation, maintenance and conservation.

It is argued that the building is subject to inherent constraints given its listed status and that this limits market appeal. It is also stated that a three bedroom configuration does not align with buyer/market expectations for a property of the scale and character of the appeal property. I can see that the proposed four bedroom layout with ensuites may provide a more marketable property more consistent with modern occupation standards, improve its functionality without the need for further external extensions, better enable the building to compete with non-listed properties, and maximise property value.

A Viability and [name] has been provided which suggests that the appeal property’s existing three bedroom configuration is economically unviable. I appreciate that the statement is not intended to provide a detailed financial appraisal and is considered by the appellant to be proportionate in the circumstances. Even so, in the absence of any idea of even the basic costs associated with providing a three or four bedroom layout, weighed against respective potential sale values, there is no evidence before me to demonstrate that the need for an additional bedroom is a pragmatic response to the costs associated with the listed building as suggested by the appellant.

Additionally, whilst it is stated that prospective buyers have raised concerns regarding cost and inflexibility (and that this feedback prompted the layout changes sought by the appeal scheme), no evidence relating to the marketing of the property has been provided.

This being so, whilst a four bedroom layout may well maximise the value of the appeal property, there is no substantiated evidence before me to demonstrate that a three bedroom layout would not be an economically viable use for the farmhouse, or that it would not generate a value sufficient to enable investment in the maintenance of the building necessary for its long term conservation. Whilst it has been vacant for some time, the appellant refers to the appeal property’s long history of rental use as a three bedroom house. Even given its condition, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the property could not be bought back into residential use in its existing configuration.

Moreover, I am mindful that the optimum viable use of the appeal property may not necessarily be the most economically viable one. In the face of a range of economically viable uses, the PPG is clear that the optimum viable use is the one likely to cause the least harm to the significance of the asset. This being so, and given the harm I have identified in relation to the main issues, I am not persuaded that internal layout proposed represents the optimum viable use of the appeal building.

In terms of public benefits, resuming the residential use of the property is a public benefit of the proposal, as is preventing further decay and deterioration to the listed building and ensuring its regular maintenance and investment. Improvements to the listed building itself are also public benefits of the proposed works. These are set out above and concern the reinstatement and repair of internal historic features currently concealed or neglected and improvements to the appearance of the wider listed building arising from the active use of the appeal property. In addition, the proposed works would support specialised conservation trades, and the replacement windows would give rise to thermal enhancements. However, I am conscious that all these benefits could be realised via an alternative less harmful scheme. This limits the weight I attribute to them.

I therefore find that the public benefits in this case are insufficient to outweigh the harm to the designated heritage asset that I have identified. For these reasons the works fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the Framework. Whilst the decision notice refers to Policies P10 and P11 of the [name] and saved Unitary Development Plan Policies GP5, N14 and N17, I am mindful that listed building appeals are not subject to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 and so do not need to be determined in accordance with the development plan. In coming to my overall conclusion I have had regard to the letter of support for the proposed works.

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