Appeal 6004711

Appeal A is dismissed.

Appeal B is dismissed.

As the proposal relates 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 proposal would preserve a [name]* listed building, known as ‘[name] (Ref: 1362889), and any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses.

[name] is a detached, two-storey dwelling with attic, which dates back to around 1600 and features 18th and 20th century alterations. It is a [name]* listed building, which has a historic three-room plan form, with cross-passage. The appeal property is a timber framed dwelling, with jetty and features close-studding, with plaster infill. The front elevation has bay and clerestory windows. The rear elevation features brickwork at ground floor level, which is laid in English bond and has been painted white. The rear elevation also includes windows of a variety of Appeal Decision – Appeal A: 6004711 and Appeal B: 6004712 periods, sizes and designs, including leaded light windows and timber windows with glazing bars.

Based on my site visit and the evidence before me, I find that the listed building’s special interest insofar as is relevant to these appeals is derived from its historic and architectural interests as an illustration of domestic architecture from around the early 17th century. The building’s surviving historic fabric, including its timber frame, presence of traditional materials and fenestration and the legibility of its historic plan form make important contributions in these regards.

The proposal seeks to remove an existing timber framed window, which has leaded lights and traditional ironmongery. While there are an assortment of window styles and sizes on the rear elevation, the existing window by reason of its size, design and use of materials is in keeping with other windows on the rear elevation. It appears from the evidence before me and my site visit that this window, is a later addition and was likely installed in the 20th century. Although the window is of low historic merit, it preserves the special interest of the listed building.

The proposal seeks to widen the existing opening and install new doors. The appellants have reduced the size of the opening and amended the design of the scheme following an earlier refusal of planning permission and listed building consent. The installation of the new doors would require the removal of some of the existing brickwork around the window. While the brickwork in this area is laid in English bond and matches the bond used elsewhere on the rear elevation, I observed on my site visit that the area of brickwork surrounding the window is more regular and uniform in its appearance than other sections of brickwork on the rear of the building. The paint had been removed from a small section of this wall, which showed the presence of modern bricks in this location. Consequently, based on the evidence before me, I do not find that the removal of the window or brickwork would result in the loss of any historic fabric.

The proposed doors would be constructed of timber, have recessed frames and would be hand painted in a muted colour. The proposed doors would be sited between two timber posts. [name] observed that some of the timber frame surrounding this window has recently been replaced with modern fabric, I do not find that the proposed doors would impact the building’s timber frame. Nevertheless, the proposed door opening would be larger than any of the existing door openings on the building. The proposal would also introduce a new door to a room, where there is no compelling evidence before me that a previous door existed in this location. Consequently, I find that the proposal would harmfully erode the historic legibility of the building.

The proposed doors would be largely glazed, with a symmetrical form and feature double glazing with astragal glazing bars. The design of the proposed doors does not reflect the architectural design or period of the appeal property. Although slim-line double glazing is proposed, it would have a chunkier profile and different reflective qualities when compared to single glazing. While Historic England advise that slim-line double glazing may be acceptable in some instances, in this case I find that the size and design of the proposal would introduce a modern and incongruous feature to the rear of the building. The provision of astragal glazing bars would also fail to be authentic. Appeal Decision – Appeal A: 6004711 and Appeal B: 6004712

I appreciate that the proposed doors would be sited on the rear elevation of the building and would not be visible from the public domain. Nevertheless, listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of whether or not public views of the building can be gained.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal scheme would fail to preserve the special interest of the listed building. Given the nature and extent of the proposal, I find the harm to the special interest of the listed building to be ‘less than substantial’ and at the lower end of the scale. However, this should not be equated with a less than substantial planning objection and is of considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including where appropriate, securing the asset’s optimum viable use.

The proposal would result in investment into the property, which would result in a small economic benefit, which I give limited weight in my decision as a public benefit. The proposal would provide additional light into the dining room. However, this is primarily a private benefit, with any benefit being minimal as this room already benefits from a large area of glazing on the front elevation and an existing window on the rear elevation. While the provision of double glazing would improve the thermal efficiency of the dwelling and contribute to the government’s goal of achieving net zero, given the limited nature of the works, ay environmental benefits that would accrue to the public at large are likely to be minimal.

While the appellants argue that the proposal would improve accessibility, functionality and the quality of amenity for existing and future occupants, this is largely a private benefit, rather than a public benefit. I do not find that the design of the proposal represents a betterment over the existing window and find no public benefit in this regard.

There is no compelling evidence before me why an additional doorway is required from a fire safety perspective, given that the dwelling is already served by two external doors (front door and utility room door). Should an additional door be required, there is no substantive evidence before me why one of the historic doorways that have been sealed shut could not be reopened. Accordingly, there is no clear and convincing justification for the harm that I have identified. Neither is there any compelling evidence that the optimum viable use of the asset as a dwelling would cease in the absence of the proposal. As a result, I do not find the appeal scheme necessary to secure the viability and long-term conservation of the building.

While the appellants argue that the works are reversible in nature, there is no compelling evidence before me that once the doors have been installed, that they would ever be removed. I therefore give this argument limited weight in my

Overall, I give the public benefits limited weight in my decision. Consequently, in attributing great weight to the harm that would be caused to the significance of the designated heritage asset, I find that there are insufficient public benefits arising from the appeal scheme to outweigh this harm.

Given the above, I conclude that, on balance, the appeal scheme would fail to preserve the special interest of the listed building. Accordingly, it would fail to Appeal Decision – Appeal A: 6004711 and Appeal B: 6004712 satisfy the requirements of the Act and the historic environment policies of the Framework. The appeal scheme conflicts with Policy ENV13 of the Ashford Local Plan 2030, adopted February 2019 (the Local Plan). This policy among other things seeks to preserve or enhance the heritage assets of the Borough, sustaining and enhancing their significance. I do not find that Policy HOU8 of the Local Plan is applicable to this appeal, as the proposal is not for a residential extension.

I acknowledge the support for the proposal by a private representative; however, this does not alter my findings set out above.

Appeal A: The appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, for the reasons given above, Appeal A should be dismissed.

Appeal B: For the reasons given above, Appeal B should be dismissed.