Appeal 6004422

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the effect on the significance of 89- [site address] (nos. 89 and 91) as a non-designated heritage asset.

The appeal building is one of a semi-detached pair (nos. 89 and 91) of 2-storey dwellings in garden plots, set within an established residential area. The pair appears within a varied streetscene along [site address] Road, where their front elevations have a broadly symmetrical appearance except for a chimney stack and side extension to No 91. The appeal site’s side boundary runs along a track leading to [address], a small residential development to the rear of the appeal building, from where part of its rear elevation can be seen above the fence line.

Nos. 89-91 are included in the Crawley Local Building List, so together form a non-designated heritage asset (‘NDHA’). This document states they were probably built as farm cottages and are included on account of their historic and architectural interest. I consider that the significance of this NDHA, so far as relevant to this appeal, derives from their broadly symmetrical massing and scale, use of fine detailing and traditional materials. At the rear elevation, that detailing includes the fishscale tiles at first floor and a decorative dentil band of brickwork between those tiles and the red brick at ground floor level.

In addition to the single-storey side addition, the evidence indicates that the appeal building is already extended by a ‘link’ extension to the rear connecting the principal building to a rear extension which replaced an outbuilding. These extensions have differing roof forms and detailing. Whilst the rear elevation has been altered over time, the massing of the principal building remains legible, and this allows for appreciation of the building’s traditional farm cottage character.

The proposal would introduce an additional ground floor extension of a differing design to previous additions. Whilst it would not project beyond the rearmost wall of the building, it would extend across a large area of the remaining unaltered rear elevation as well as overlapping with the rear of the existing side extension. It would also abut existing windows, resulting in an over dominant and awkward appearance. The use of a flat roof, whilst limited in its massing, would not respond to the design of the existing additions at ground floor. This would result in an incoherent and uncoordinated appearance at the rear of the building.

In combination with the existing extensions, the proposal would erode what remains of the legibility of the principal building’s massing and form from perspectives at the rear. Although limited to the ground floor at No 91, this effect would nonetheless harm this aspect of the NDHA’s significance.

Owing to its height, the proposal would overlap the dentil course between the ground and first floor and the lower rows of fishscale hanging tiles at the principal building’s rear elevation. As a result, this fine detailing would be lost, which would also cause harm to this NDHA’s significance.

The use of matching brick, joints and brick courses above openings and slimline timber windows would be cohesive with the original building, and I have no reason to doubt these would be delivered to a high standard. Whilst the Council criticises the fenestration pattern, this would be similar to that found in the existing altered side and rear elevations, so would be unobjectionable. Nonetheless, these factors would not be sufficient to overcome the harm identified.

The NDHA’s significance partly derives from the ability to appreciate the appearance of its dentil and hanging tile detailing across the building as a whole, not only where it appears in the streetscene. That detailing is visible from a public vantage point at [address], albeit to a limited extent. It is also appreciated from within the appeal building and its rear garden. Whilst the principal building’s roof form and contribution to the streetscene at [site address] Road would be unaltered, I do not consider that poor design resulting in the loss of features of architectural interest would be justified solely because it is located at this less prominent rear elevation.

Overall, the proposal would directly affect the NDHA through obscuring part of its form and massing and the loss of detailing to part of the rear elevation, which contribute to its significance. This would result in a moderate degree of harm to nos. 89 and 91 overall and the extent to which this NDHA contributes to the character and appearance of the area.

The National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) states that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance. Paragraph 216 directs that the effect of an application on the significance of a NDHA should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect a NDHA, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

In terms of benefits, I recognise that the extension would provide additional accommodation and seeks to rationalise internal space, which is of importance to the occupants. However, this would largely be experienced as a private benefit and therefore carries limited weight in favour of the proposal. In a similar vein, the appellant contends that it is common for rear elevations to be subject to change to accommodate evolving domestic needs. Even so, I am not satisfied that similar benefits could not be achieved through an alternative or less harmful design.

It is also proposed to replace the existing concrete peg tiles to the rear elevation of the side extension with reclaimed tiles to replicate those used in the original construction. Were this appropriately secured, it would amount to a modest heritage benefit. However, given my findings on the harm, in my balanced judgment I do not consider that it would be outweighed by these benefits.

Thus, I conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the effect on the significance of nos. 89 and 91 as a non-designated heritage asset. This would conflict with relevant provisions of Policies DD1, CL2, HA1 and HA5 of the Crawley Borough Local Plan (2023-2040). Amongst other things, those policies seek proposals which respect or preserve the character of NDHAs and provide high quality design that relates sympathetically in its massing, layout, details and materials. There would also be conflict with the Framework’s heritage provisions.

It has been put to me that a rear extension of an alternative design could be carried out under Permitted Development Rights (PDR). That is the appellant’s fallback position. I do not doubt that the appellant would explore such alternatives should the appeal fail. The assessment of a PDR scheme would be determined on the basis of technical compliance, rather than heritage significance. However, there are no plans before me to demonstrate what that alternative design would look like. Nor is there any indication that a lawful development certificate has been granted which confirms an alternative design would be lawful.

In this particular case, it is unclear how an alternative design would interact with existing extensions. This could reasonably limit the size of a rear extension possible under PDRs. I therefore have insufficient evidence to conclude that there is a greater than theoretical possibility that the fallback development might take place. Nor am I satisfied that any such alternative would be equally as, or more, harmful than the proposal before me. Consequently, this carries very limited weight in favour of the appeal.

The Council considers that the proposal would retain a useable garden area and it raises no concern about the proposal appearing disproportionate within the plot. Similarly, it identifies no concern regarding living conditions for neighbouring occupiers or the effect on parking. I see no reason to disagree. However, the absence of harm in these respects does not amount to a benefit weighing in favour of the proposal.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.