Appeal 6004307

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the significance of the Treeton Conservation Area (CA) and its effect on the character and appearance of the building and the area.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that when considering the impact of new development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to its conservation. I have also had special regard to section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) as amended.

The appeal site forms part of a complex of former agricultural buildings centred around a front courtyard within the [name] that have been converted into dwellings. The CA centres around the listed, historic parish church of [name], and includes buildings mainly on [site address] and [address], many of which appear to have been developed during the Georgian and Victorian eras. It is characterised by buildings constructed mainly in local stone with slate roofs and by the stone boundaries and the trees and open spaces within it. [address], despite some domestic additions, alterations and paraphernalia particularly within the rear gardens, retains much of its former agricultural character which contributes to the significance of the CA, both historically as an example of a historic farm complex and architecturally in its form, detail and materials.

The proposed extension would be sited on the rear elevation of the building. At around 12m in width, it would extend across almost the full width of the residential unit and would project to the rear by some 3m. It would have a shallow pitched roof of stone tiles and clay pantiles, with stone copings and detailing. Its height, projection and design would reflect those of an extension to the adjoining dwelling that is smaller in width than proposed here.

The appeal dwelling has a large, double storey cart shed opening which, on the basis of the large stone blocks surrounding it, would appear to be an original opening and this forms an important historical feature that contributes significantly to the building’s character and appearance, despite being partially blocked up at its top with timber cladding. The proposed extension would obscure most of that opening despite the retention of the upper part and lintel and this would have a severely detrimental impact.

Furthermore, its substantial width would overly dominate the rear elevation of the dwelling and together with the existing adjacent extension, would further disrupt the simple, largely uninterrupted elevation of the building as a whole. I have noted that the building as a whole is some 40m across its rear elevation and that there are other additions on the rear elevation and outbuildings in some rear gardens. However, the adjacent extension is materially smaller in width than this proposal and the pergola at no 3 is a lightweight structure that is also smaller in width and lower in height. The external stone staircase at no 4 is likely to have been an original feature and the outbuildings are sited away from the rear elevation. As such, those do not have the same impact as this proposal would have.

At my visit, I saw that the rear elevation of the building cannot be seen from public viewpoints, or from the private shared alleyway at the rear, but can be seen from the rear gardens of the appeal site and its neighbours as well as from a dwelling to the rear. Although the front elevation of the building makes a greater contribution to the character and appearance of the CA, the rear elevation still has some significance in contributing to its character because character is not dependent on visibility from public viewpoints. The character of the building is important to the significance of the CA, both historically and architecturally as described earlier. This proposal would diminish its character and value as well as that of the CA.

Whilst the harm in this case would be less than substantial and at the lower end of the spectrum, it still carries considerable weight, and the Framework also requires that any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset (in this case the CA) should require clear and convincing justification. Where the harm is less than substantial, it should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The proposal would increase the appellant’s living accommodation but that would be a private benefit and carries very limited weight. I have noted that there was no objection from the Council in regard to the living conditions or amenity of neighbouring occupiers and that there was a letter of support for the proposal from a local resident. However, the harm I have identified is significant and is not outweighed by those considerations. Those matters do not, therefore, amount to public benefits sufficient to outweigh the harm that would be caused here as required by the Framework.

I conclude then that the proposal, by reason of its width and the obscuring of most of the historic cart shed opening, would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the building and would fail to preserve or enhance the significance of the CA. As such, it would be contrary to development plan policies CS23 and CS28 in the Rotherham Local Plan Core Strategy 2013-2028 which together seek to ensure that proposals conserve and enhance heritage assets, are responsive to their context and visually attractive, taking into account factors such as scale and building styles.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would be contrary to the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh that. The appeal should be dismissed.