Appeal 6007944

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider Lacock Conservation Area.

The appellant’s grounds of appeal refer to a document entitled the Lacock Conservation Management Plan (LCMP). I am told this is a document prepared for the National Trust who are the freehold owners of large parts of the historic village of Lacock, including land to the south, west and north-east of the appeal site. There is nothing before me to suggest that the LCMP is part of the local planning authority’s development plan. Neither has it been referred to or relied upon by the Council in their decision or their reasoning. Notwithstanding, I have had regard to those parts of the LCMP that have been put to me by the appellant as far as they are relevant to the merits of the case.

Nos [site address] , [site address] and [site address] are an original terrace of three modest, two-storey cottages dating from the late 19th Century and now understood to be occupied as a single dwelling. The house sits immediately to the back edge of a narrow country lane terminating nearby as a no-through road and which is accessed from the village centre to the south via a ford. It sits along a sporadic ribbon of houses within the Lacock Conservation Area (CA), a dispersed area covering the village’s historic medieval core, numerous listed buildings, the Grade 1 listed [name] and its grounds and gardens, along with surrounding open land and fields including wider reaching public footpaths and rights of way enclosed by the [name] to the east of the settlement. The appeal property is constructed of [name] with red clay roof tiles. Although of later construction than many other buildings within Lacock, and despite some unsympathetic window replacement, two single-storey rear extensions, and being outside of any of the LCMP’s defined character areas, its traditional form and simple appearance helps it to assimilate comfortably within its setting, making a small but nevertheless positive contribution to the historic character and rural appearance of the CA.

The proposal is to replace the two existing extensions to the rear of the dwelling with a part single-storey, part two-storey extension. At ground floor the extension would project to a depth of [site address] .16m. The first-floor addition would sit above to a depth of 5m with two-rear facing gables and a central valley. The floorplan redesign would include removal of the building’s sole remaining front door facing [address] and installing a new principal entrance to the existing south facing gable end.

[name] of the [name] 2024 (WDG) provides guidance for householder extensions. Amongst other things, it advises that extensions should be carefully considered to respect the original and neighbouring buildings and should be subservient additions that act as a supporting, rather than dominant, role.

Contrary to assertions by the appellant, I observed for myself the rear of the appeal property was not out of sight and could be clearly seen over the rear gardens of neighbouring properties at Nos 5 and [address] from a public footpath to the north. The dwelling’s flank elevation was also clearly visible in the approach along the upward slope of [address] from the south, despite the amount of surrounding foliage which was in leaf at the time. Whilst views from these positions are not those listed as protected within the LCMP, the existing building is set firmly within the bounds of the CA as a whole, where its form is reflective of the three original cottages’ modest and simple origins, in-keeping with the wider area’s unique charm. The scale and form of the extension would be clearly seen from these public vantage points, which would likely be part of many circular walks within the CA taken by local people and visitors.

Despite being set in from the existing flank walls and set down from the ridge, the proposed extension would add significant volume and bulk to the rear of the building. The addition would span the majority of its width and would virtually double the depth of the dwelling’s existing footprint. Its dual gables would be dominant features of the remodelled rear elevation, displaying a large mass of new built form which would obscure any visual associations with the building’s past. The overwhelming scale of the rear addition would also be seen from the south along [address], where the modest depth and proportions of the original cottages would be lost and transformed into a considerably more imposing image of one single, large, detached home. This would significantly undermine the building’s established character and appearance, and the contribution it makes to the CA.

The use of extensive glazing, including above first-floor level within the apex’s of the rear gables, and uncharacteristically horizontally proportioned picture windows to the south facing flank, would further significantly contrast with and detract from the traditional styling of the existing dwelling, and the important part it plays within the wider CA. Notwithstanding the use of matching materials, the variance between the traditional form of neighbouring buildings when seen from the rear, and the contemporary styling proposed at the appeal property, would be stark and would be exaggerated further during hours of darkness when light could readily spill from inside the building in an intrusive manner without any reasonable means of control, and which would be readily perceived from beyond the confines of the appeal site.

The large array of solar panels, particularly on the extension’s southern elevation obscuring much of the exposed roof plane, would appear alien and out-of-keeping, contributing further to an erosion of the area’s historic character and visual appeal.

The appellant has argued that the proposal would provide a more harmonious design for the property as a whole when compared with the unsympathetic form of the two existing rear extensions. I disagree. The existing extensions, whilst not especially sympathetic, are low rise and reasonably inconspicuous. The degree of visual harm they cause is limited. Their removal does not justify the vastly increased scale or form of development that is proposed, which would fail to show any acceptable degree of subservience or respect for the original building and its surroundings. By so doing, it would introduce a form of development the WDG specifically advises against and one which I find would neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

Having regard to paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework – December 2024 (the Framework), the harm arising from the proposal to the significance of the CA as a designated heritage asset would be less than substantial. However, this does not equate to a less than substantial objection and any harm to a designated heritage asset requires clear and convincing justification in line with paragraph 213 of the Framework. Furthermore, in line with the Framework’s paragraph 215, such harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

Given the statutory duty set out in Section 72(1) of the Planning (listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA, I attach significant weight to the harm that I have identified to the historic environment. I acknowledge that the array of solar panels would result in some reduction in CO2 emissions for the home, with some further benefits to the national grid through a net export of electricity. However, the weight I attach to this is tempered by the visual harm that I have identified from part of the installation. The overall weight I attach to any public benefits associated with the proposal is insufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified.

Given my findings, there would be clear conflict with [name] 57 and 58 of the [name], adopted in 2015. Between them, and amongst other things, these seek to ensure development displays a high quality of design that is complementary to the locality and which, as a minimum, conserves the special character or appearance of conservation areas.

The appellant has suggested that the proposal would be of a type that would align with other extensions that have taken place to other properties within the CA. No specific examples have been put to me. Neither did I observe any obvious changes to any buildings within the CA that I found to be overtly insensitive.

I have had regard to the location of listed buildings near to the appeal site. I share the Council’s view that owing to the distances involved and the siting of the proposed works, there would be no impact upon the character or setting of any listed buildings.

For the reasons given, I find that the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the appeal property and the wider Lacock Conservation Area. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.