Appeal 6006767

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form confirms that the appeal proposal has been completed and this was evident to me during my site visit. Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) makes allowance for the submission of a planning application for development which has been carried out before the date of the application. I have determined the appeal on that basis.

I have used the description of the appeal proposal, with some minor variations, from the decision notice as I consider this better reflects the proposed development before me. I have also removed the wording ‘retrospective application’ from the description as this does not constitute a form of development as per Section 55 of the Act.

Conditional Planning Permission was granted at the appeal property (No. 82) on 26th September 2024 (the 2024 decision) through application ref 24/0712/FUL for ‘Replacement roof, raise rear pitched roof, replace all windows and access door and repair chimney.’ The 2024 decision is material to this case in so far as it establishes an acceptance of a number of alterations to No. 82 and a fallback position. I have therefore had due regard to the 2024 decision in my assessment of

The 2024 decision through condition 2 lists as one of the approved plans ‘Existing and [name] [name].’ However, the elevational plan I have been provided with in association with the 2024 decision, whilst having a file name as above, is titled ref ‘3954/03B’ on the plan itself. For the avoidance of any doubt, I therefore sought clarification from both the appellant and the Council that the plan titled ref ‘3954/03B’ is one of the approved plans for the 2024 decision. Both parties have confirmed this is the case, and therefore I have determined the appeal on that basis.

The appellant has set out in their supporting appeal statement a suggested commitment to rebuilding the chimney on No. 82, however this is not what is reflected on the submitted plans nor the description of development. I also do not have any detail of how the suggested rebuild would be undertaken. The Planning Appeals Procedural Guide makes clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme. Further, the Council and interested parties have also not had the opportunity to comment upon this suggestion. Therefore, I have determined the appeal based on the plans and description that were before the Council when it made its decision.

The main issue is the effects of the appeal proposal on the character and appearance of No. 82, the wider area, and heritage assets, namely upon the Topsham Conservation Area (the CA) and the setting of nearby listed buildings.

No. [address] along [address] on its western side. Fore street falls within the heart of the CA. There are a number of listed buildings in the CA, the closest to No.82 is Nos.79 and 80 which are collectively a [name] listed building1 and are positioned to the south, beyond an intervening passageway with No.82 which leads to No.[address] to the rear.

I have been provided with a copy of the Topsham Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (the CAAMP) from June 2009. Whilst this document does not form part of the development plan, the introduction to the CAAMP confirms that it was subject to public consultation and I consider it to be a useful and material document in the appraisal of the appeal proposals.

The CAAMP explains that the close grained pattern of streets and back courts in the CA, particularly along [address], reflect the medieval origins of the CA. It explains that the majority of buildings along [address] reflect the very high quality townscape; span a wide range of ages and styles; and are predominately a variety of 2 and 3 storey buildings. From all that I observed during my site visit, I agree with the above.

[name] 2009, the CAAMP recorded No. 82 as one of the ‘Buildings making a positive contribution’ to the CA on Plan 7. I have been provided with a number of photographs of No. 82 by the appellant and the Council, prior to the appeal works being undertaken. I have also had regard to the contents of the ‘Design and access and heritage statement’ which was submitted as part of the 2024 decision and provides photographic and descriptive details of No.82 prior to the appeal works taking place.

It is evident from these images that No. 82, although featuring some poor quality windows and an artificial slate roof, contributed positively to the street scene as a consequence of a combination of both its distinct attributes, but nonetheless broader coherence and compatibility with the properties that surrounded it. Notably, this was a result of matters such as its overall form and massing, the style and 1 [name]: 1103918 dimensions of the dormer window which related well to the existing roof form, the overall solid-to-void ratio, and features such as its chimney which appeared similar in scale and detail to the adjacent chimney on the [name] listed Nos.79 and 80.

I therefore agree with the conclusions of the CAAMP that No. 82, prior to the appeal works being undertaken, was a positive building of significance on [address], and contributed as such to the special characteristics of the CA. It also contributed positively to the setting of the adjacent listed building of Nos.79 and 80, due to the above, alongside its proximity and through details such as its chimney.

Turning to the appeal proposal itself, during my site visit, from my approach to No. [address] from the south I was immediately taken with the scale and projection of the dormer window, which appeared totally out of proportion with the characteristics of the roofscape of No.82 and that of the neighbouring buildings. I was also taken by the thickness and brashness of the materials on the window surrounds which clashed with the subtly and refined style of the dormers perceived in the same context as No.82. The dormer appeared domineering, incongruous and out of place and drew the eye as a result. My conclusions on the above reflected my observations from other vantage points along [address] to the north, and from the approach towards No.[address] to the east. From the latter, the dormer window is perceived almost straight on, and the irregularity of its scale and overall appearance in comparison to neighbouring properties was clearly evident.

With regard to the other components of the appeal proposal, the removal without an appropriate replacement of the chimney stack which was similar to what is found on No. 80 adjacent is again a negative design response. It represented a specific design feature that is found along a number of the properties on [address], that contributed positively to the character and appearance of No. 82, the area, the CA and due to its similarity and relationship with the chimney on the adjacent No.80, the setting of this listed building (in combination with No.79). The removal of the chimney and the lack of an appropriate replacement is therefore harmful in the above regard.

The replacement windows on the front facing east elevation are an enlargement vertically which I understand is to reflect the original openings. Whilst such an approach is understandable, the manner of the dividing bars and the dark finish of the windows that have been installed appear at odds with what is found elsewhere along the street. [name] appreciate that non-traditional windows existed previously, they at least retained a degree of verticality and were finished in a white material. The proposed windows lack any finesse, and the colour finishes and the window divides are entirely out of keeping with the site context. Again, the style and appearance unduly draw the eye.

The final element of the appeal proposal which I have concerns about includes a new window with cladding underneath in what I understand was an original doorway opening at ground floor level on the south elevation, this opening fronts towards the passageway leading to No.[address] to the rear. This has again been executed poorly, consisting of the same grey finish to a window at the upper level of the opening to the windows on the east elevation, with the lower section consisting of a brown coloured cladding. This again appears as an odd and incongruous feature when viewed from [address].

As explained already, planning permission was given through the 2024 decision for a number of alterations to No.82 and this is material to my conclusions as a fallback position. The approved Elevational plan (ref 3954/03B) of the 2024 decision would have retained the dormer window and chimney, and the replacement windows are all shown as of a white aluminium. The details provided to me for the enlarged windows show that they would be of a simple sliding sash design. I also understand that the opening on the south elevation would have provided for a doorway. The 2024 decision thereby retains and appropriately adapts several of the positive features on the building and replaces the non-traditional windows with a finish that is reflective of what is found nearby, and of a style that is traditional to the CA, and most likely No. 82 itself. The 2024 decision does not therefore lead me to any differing conclusions on the concerns I have expressed above with the appeal proposal.

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the LB & CA Act) requires that special regard is given to the desirability of preserving a listed building, its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Section 72(1) of the LB & CA Act relates to conservation areas and requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

These statutory requirements are reinforced through Policy C1, with regard to conservation areas, and Policy C2, with regard to a listed building, of the Exeter Local Plan First Review 2005 (the ELP).

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) says when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a heritage asset (including listed buildings and conservation areas), great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. Paragraph 215 of the Framework explains that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

For the reasons I have already set out, the appeal proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of No.82 and the wider area. The appeal proposal also fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA and would lead to harm to the setting of the [name] listed Nos. 79 and 80. This harm would be less than substantial as defined by the Framework and therefore should be weighed against any public benefits of the proposal.

In support of the proposal, the appellant has put forward a number of matters which I have taken full account of in my considerations. These include that the appeal works have led to the repair and stabilisation of No. 82 and from everything I have before me, it does appear that No. 82 was in a poor structural condition prior to the works being undertaken. The appellant has also put forward that the replacement dormer window was required to be larger due to modern structural and thermal requirements, albeit I have not been provided with any detailed information in this regard.

Nonetheless, whilst the above and wider matters are recognised, it is not clear to me why the completed works before me were the only way of achieving these objectives and that a suitable alternative proposal could not be devised which provides the same or similar outcome, which is more sympathetic to the character and appearance of No. 82, the area, the CA and the setting of Nos. 79 and 80. Further, whilst it may be the case that modern structural and thermal requirements would necessitate a larger dormer window, such matters do not override the statutory requirements and policy context I have outlined above.

In conclusion, the harm that the proposal would have on the character and appearance of No. 82, the area, the CA and the setting of the listed building of Nos. 79 and 80, carries significant weight against a grant of planning permission. In favour of the appeal, the proposal has led to matters such as the stabilisation and ultimately active use of No. 82 which appeared to have been in a poor state of repair. However, for the reasons I have explained above, on balance, I consider that the harm caused by the proposal clearly outweighs any of the public benefits in this case.

Consequently, I find that the appeal proposal would conflict with Policies C1, C2, C3 and DG1 of the ELP, Policy CP17 and Objectives 8 and 9 of the [name] and Sections 12 and 16 of the Framework, which amongst other matters seek to ensure that development respects the site and its surroundings; promotes local distinctiveness; contributes positively to the visual richness and amenity of the townscape; preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the CA; and the setting of listed buildings.

The appeal proposal has a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of No.82 and of the wider area, it fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the CA and is harmful to the setting of the [name] listed building of Nos. 79 and 80.

As a result of these negative effects, the proposal is in my view unacceptable, and contrary to the development plan, when read as a whole. There are no material considerations that would justify a decision contrary to the provisions of the development plan, in this case.

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