Appeal 6004404

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal property is treated by the Council as a non-designated Heritage Asset and therefore falls to be considered as a Heritage Asset (HA) as defined in the Framework1.

Since the issuing of the original decision the Council has formally adopted the new South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (SWDPR), which replaced its former development plan. The references to the former development plan found in the officer report and decision notice can therefore be discounted. Having regard to the main issue identified below, the most relevant policy is SWDPR 09 which deals with the historic environment.

This is the effect of the proposal on the character, appearance and setting of the

Judging from the representations [address] was originally built as a country house before being converted to a school in the early part of the 20th century. More recently it was converted into residential units. According to the appellant the two-storey wing incorporating Nos 5 & [address] is an addition to the original building. If that is so, the addition was built so as to match harmoniously with the main structure with regard to appearance, materials and roofscape, including the chimney. Notwithstanding the subdivision, the building, in particular the south- 1 National Planning Policy Framework. facing main elevation, stands elegantly in well maintained landscaped grounds exuding the aura of a fine country house.

I note the past alterations made to the main façade, including the addition of a raised patio and doorway to the front of No 4, but these were undertaken tastefully and have fitted well. The intention is to introduce another doorway and porch in lieu of a window in front of No 5, with two parking spaces alongside. The introduction of the parking facility would involve the loss of part of a decorative garden fronting this part of the former house.

I understand that certain advantages would accrue to the appellant arising from the introduction of another entrance to the unit and a more convenient parking area. On the other hand, the modest garden area proposed as a replacement to the rear would be cast in shadow for most of the day. Be that as it may, to my mind, the loss of a window and introduction of a porch in this position would imbalance the current attractive appearance of the front elevation, proving visually disharmonious. It would also affect the building’s character by accentuating subdivision. Together with the introduction of parking spaces, the proposed changes would significantly devalue and harm the appearance and setting of the HA’s main elevation. The advantages of the scheme to the appellant are, in my view, clearly outweighed by the harm caused to the HA.

Accordingly, I conclude that the setting, character and appearance of the HA would be harmed. A clear conflict arises with those provisions of policy SWDPR 09 requiring development proposals to safeguard the setting and significance of heritage assets. This policy reflects the Framework’s guidance on development affecting this type of heritage asset.

That parking has been allowed to take place at the other end of the front elevation is noted, and the spaces were in use when I visited. In my view they detract from the appearance of the HA causing clutter and do not provide justification for the proposed development. No other matter raised is of such significance as to outweigh those considerations leading me to my conclusions.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.