Appeal 6007143

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area, and on the host property.

The property is a small detached house that lies centrally on a large plot within the countryside. I am informed it is one of a number of original Land Settlement Association (LSA) houses that were built in the mid-1930s following an initiative by the Government to provide rural employment for unemployed industrial workers. The house has been little altered and displays much of the original character due to the form and appearance, and relationship with its plot.

Many other LSA houses have been altered, extended or replaced in the years since the LSA houses were given over to private ownership, and I viewed examples at my site visit. However, as well as No. 47 displaying a good example of the original form and appearance of such houses, I noted that the property lies in a strong grouping of similar houses along [address]. Although those other LSA houses have been altered, the core of the houses are generally visible, which ensures there is a clear impression of the original scale and form of the small LSA houses, sitting on their large plots. The fact that other LSA houses more distant from the appeal site have been substantially extended or demolished does not diminish the value of this grouping, or indeed the appeal property itself.

The Council have identified the property as a non-designated heritage asset. The Council’s delegated report explains this was undertaken in accordance with Histoic England’s Advice Note 7 Local Heritage Listing: Identifying and Conserving Local Heritage. [name] explains states that non-designated heritage assets may be identified by a local planning authority during the decision-making process on planning applications, as evidence emerges. It is apparent to me this was the case in this instance, when the Council was aware of the particular circumstances of this case, and so was an appropriate course of action. I consider the appeal property to be a good example of the evolution of habitation and a particular point in social history in the area. The scale, appearance and relationship to its plot important contributors to that social history, being little altered with clear indications of the original vernacular and purpose of such LSA houses. The other LSA properties in the area, which are still perceptible as LSA houses, contributes further to this through an evident group value. The significance of the building as a non-designated heritage asset derives from these properties.

Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework seeks to ensure new development is visually attractive, and is sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and landscape setting. Policy LPP 47 of the Braintree District Local Plan 2013-2033 (adopted 2022) requires a high standard of design and layout in all new development which, amongst other matters, respects and responds to the local context. Policy LPP 52 requires that the scale, layout, height, massing and design of buildings reflects the area’s local distinctiveness, and is in harmony with the area’s character and appearance.

Policy LPP 36 of the Local Plan sets out the Council’s specific approach to the residential alterations and extensions. Paragraph 4.106 of the supporting text to the Policy states that inappropriate extensions or alterations of existing dwellings in the countryside can have a detrimental effect on the openness and rural character of the countryside, and accordingly a key objective of the policy is to restrict the extension or replacement of dwellings outside development boundaries to that appropriate to the countryside setting. Criteria b. of the Policy accordingly says that the design, siting, bulk, form and materials of any extension should be compatible with the original dwelling and character of the area. Criterion c. requires extensions to be subordinate to the original dwelling in terms of bulk, height and position.

The proposed extensions to the appeal property are very substantial. The one and a half extension to the rear would be comparable in height to the existing house, extending a considerable distance from the house and being around the full width of the house. The scale of this rear extension would then be greater again due to the single storey projections either side, which would be joined to the substantial side extensions either side of the original house. The two large dormers at the front of the property would dominate the roofslope due to their size and design.

These additions would increase the footprint of the house by well over double. The form, design and position of the rear and side extensions would subsume the original property, with the scale and position of the dormers further causing harm through over-dominating that building. The extensions and additions thus cannot be seen as compatible with the original dwelling or subordinate in terms of bulk, height and position: the requirements of Policy LPP 36. There would be a clear harm to the character and appearance of the open and rural character of the countryside, and to the distinctive character of the host property.

Paragraph 216 of the Framework states that effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account, and a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm to significance. The scale and form of the proposed extensions would have a harmful effect on the significance of the building as an original LSA house. The distinctive appearance and character would be lost due to the subsuming of the property within a very much larger and altered building, where there would be little semblance of the LSA core. This would have a harmful effect on how the original building is read in itself and as part of a group, so losing the historical importance of the building. Thus, the significance of the building would be harmed. The proposals would be contrary to the Framework, and would conflict with Policy LPP 57 of the Local Plan, which seeks to protect heritage assets, and criterion f. of Policy LPP 36 which requires alterations and extension to have no unacceptable adverse impact on heritage assets.

On the main issue it is therefore concluded that the proposed development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area and on the host property. It would therefore conflict with the development plan and the Framework.

The appellant has drawn attention to properties in the wider area that have been altered, extended or replaced. I have determined this appeal on its own merits with reference to the particular properties of the house, its setting on the plot, its relationship to other houses in the vicinity, the character of the area, and having regard to the policies of the current adopted development plan and the Framework. I have found the proposals would not satisfy the relevant policies for the reasons given, and so the existence of extensions and replacements elsewhere do not change my findings.

The appellant states that certain works could be undertaken to the building under permitted development rights. Sketch drawings have bene provided but these have not been confirmed through any Certificate of Lawfulness of Proposed Development, and the Council have not confirmed such works would indeed be permitted development. I therefore consider the purported permitted development scheme to not be clearly defined and no real prospect of taking place. In any event, the sketches show a totality of works that is notably less in scale than that proposed in this appeal and so would have less harmful an effect. Thus, even if a theoretical possibility, I attach little weight to this as a fallback position.

I acknowledge the appellant’s wish to alter the property to provide more living accommodation. However, this must be balanced against other matters of importance as set out in the development plan and in national planning policy. My overall findings that the proposed extensions and alterations would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and to the significance of the host property as a non-designated heritage asset, therefore remain. The appeal is dismissed accordingly.