Appeal Decision 3259600 (Rutland County Council) — 2021-01-27

Appeal Decision 3259600 (Rutland County Council) — 2021-01-27
Outcome: Split decision
Case type: Listed Building Consent & Conservation Area Consent Appeal
Development: Householder developments
Appeal type: Written Representations
Location: 3 Mill Street, New Row, Ryhall, STAMFORD, PE9 4HG
Postcode: PE9 4HG
LPA: Rutland County Council
LPA code: E06000017
PINS reference: 3259600

=== FULL INSPECTOR DECISION ===

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 13 January 2021
by Paul Thompson DipTRP MAUD MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 27th January 2021

Appeal Ref: APP/A2470/Y/20/3259600
3 New Row, Mill Street, Ryhall PE9 4HG
•
•
•
•

The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 against a refusal to grant listed building consent.
The appeal is made by Mr Neil Townsend against the decision of Rutland County
Council.
The application Ref 2020/0377/LBA, dated 31 March 2020, was refused by notice dated
26 June 2020.
The works proposed are erection of single storey front porch and conversion of existing
attic/loft space for habitable use, including insertion of 2no. rooflights.

Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to erection of single storey front
porch. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to conversion of existing
attic/loft space for habitable use, including insertion of 2no. rooflights and
listed building consent is granted for conversion of existing attic/loft space for
habitable use, including insertion of 2no. rooflights at 3 New Row, Mill Street,
Ryhall PE9 4HG in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref
2020/0377/LBA, dated 31 March 2020 and subject to the following conditions:
1) The works authorised by this consent shall begin not later than three years
from the date of this consent.
2) The works hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans: 472 01, 472 02, 472 05, 472 06, D-CRPM/01
Revision F and D-CRPM/02 Revision F.
3) Prior to the commencement of any works in connection with the new
staircase from the existing first floor to the proposed second floor, drawings
showing the details of the new staircase shall be submitted to and approved
in writing by the local planning authority. The works in connection with the
new staircase shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved
details.
Procedural Matters
2. The appellant has advised that listed building consent was subsequently
granted1 for the part of the appeal proposal concerning the conversion of the
existing attic/loft space for habitable use, including the insertion of two
rooflights in the rear roof slope (the approved scheme). The appellant has
provided the plans for the approved scheme, which include alternative
1

Planning Reference: 2020/0729/LBA.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Appeal Decision APP/A2470/Y/20/3259600

dimensions and construction details for the proposed rooflights (Drawing
References: 472 01, 472 02, 472 05, 472 06, D-CRPM/01 Revision F and DCRPM/02 Revision F).
3. The Officer Report (OR) and Decision Notice for the application subject of this
appeal did not identify any concerns with respect to the attic/loft space
conversion or the rooflight openings, except in relation to the construction of
the latter. Moreover, the OR indicated that alternative details for top-hinged
rooflights could be agreed by a condition. Given that the alternative plans
include rooflights of that nature, and with cognisance of the Wheatcroft
principles, I am satisfied that it would be reasonable and appropriate to
determine the part of the appeal proposal concerning the conversion and
rooflights on the basis of the plans listed above.
4. Listed building appeals are not subject to section 38(6) of the Planning and
Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Accordingly, they do not need to be
determined in accordance with the development plan. This is further confirmed
by the lack of a requirement in section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings
and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to have regard to the development
plan when determining applications and appeals for listed building consent. The
policies referred to by the Council on the Decision Notice are therefore a
material consideration only. In determining the appeal, I have also had regard
to the statutory duties in Sections 16(2) and 72(1) of the Act.
Main Issue
5. The main issue is whether the proposed single storey front porch extension
preserves a Grade II listed building, known as ‘New Row’, and any features of
special historic interest that it possesses, and the extent to which it preserves
or enhances the character or appearance of the Ryhall Conservation Area.
Reasons
Significance of the listed building and conservation area
6. The appeal concerns New Row, a terrace of nine two-storey cottages built in
the early 19th Century, which is set back from the street frontage behind long
and narrow gardens. The building is Grade II listed and constructed of coursed
limestone rubble, with ashlar dressings around the openings for the white
painted timber windows and doors. Each of these feature a projecting key
stone. The roof is of Collyweston slate and brick chimney stacks align its ridge.
7. The terrace has been altered, with the majority of the front façades of the
cottages to the western end incorporating porches. Aside from a much more
lowkey intervention to No 1, which includes a small gabled entrance canopy,
the eastern end is free of such adornments. More of the historic character and
appearance of the listed building is therefore retained to the eastern end. There
are also enlargements at the rear, with two-storey extensions arranged
perpendicular to the ridge and attic conversions served by rooflights.
8. Despite these more recent alterations, the significance of the listed building
today is derived from its architectural and historic interest, as a well-preserved
example of a 19th Century terrace of cottages. In particular, the use of course
rubble with ashlar embellishments creates a distinctive appearance and the
length of the front façade ensures that the building is prominent within its
surroundings.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

2

Appeal Decision APP/A2470/Y/20/3259600

9. The building is also situated within the Ryhall Conservation Area (CA), which is
centred around the historic core of the village and includes two distinct parts,
to the north and south of the river. Each part predominantly contains older
stone houses and buildings, but to the north the buildings are primarily
arranged in spacious grounds and set back from the street, while to the south
they are more densely arranged, closer to the street. The architectural design
of the porches varies in the CA from open timber framed porches to those of
solid construction, but they are generally not a feature of most properties.
10. Therefore, in so far as it relates to the appeal proposal, the significance of the
CA is predominantly derived from the form, scale and materials of its older and
more traditional buildings. The listed terrace and its presence within its
grounds, set back from the street, therefore makes an important contribution
to the character and appearance of the CA and thereby its significance.
Effect of the proposed works
11. Although the proposed porch would be of a similar depth, height, width and
materials to those found to the western half of the terrace it would obscure the
ashlar embellishment of the existing front door opening and further interrupt
the cohesion of the façade. The porch would therefore add to the erosion of the
unity, precision and visibility of the finely worked detailing of the ashlar
embellishment of openings and its repetition across this part of the building.
This would be harmful to the significance of the listed terrace. Furthermore,
despite its scale, physical distance from the street and the presence of other
porches on the terrace and elsewhere nearby, the presence of the proposed
porch on the façade of the building would weaken the contribution of the
building to the character and appearance of the CA and its significance.
12. The appellant has suggested that he would be happy to include a condition to
not utilise softwood fascias, but instead to use drive brackets to support cast
iron rainwater gutters. I accept that there may be some merit to such an
approach, that the proposal would be constructed of matching materials and
that the local Parish Council did not object to the proposal. Nevertheless, these
matters would not address my concerns with respect to the presence of the
proposal.
Public benefits and conclusions on the main issue
13. The statutory duties in the Act are matters of considerable importance and
weight. Paragraph 192 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the
Framework) states that the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the
significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with
their conservation should be taken into account in determining applications.
Meanwhile, paragraph 193 of the Framework also advises that when
considering the impact of development on the significance of designated
heritage assets, great weight should be given to their conservation. Paragraph
194 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through the
alteration or destruction of those assets and that this should have a clear and
convincing justification.
14. The proposal would be harmful to the special historic interest of the Grade II
listed building and the CA, which would have a negative effect on their
significance as designated heritage assets. In my view the harm that I have
identified would equate to less than substantial harm to the significance of
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

3

Appeal Decision APP/A2470/Y/20/3259600

these heritage assets. In such circumstances, paragraph 196 of the Framework
identifies that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of
proposals, which includes the securing of optimal viable use of listed buildings.
15. The external front door currently opens directly into the lounge of the cottage
and the proposal would provide a thermal break to this opening. This would be
largely a private benefit restricted to the appellant and his family, albeit there
would be a small environmental benefit to the public in terms of the
minimisation of energy consumption.
16. The additional habitable space that would be provided in the converted
attic/loft space, in connection with the other element of the appeal proposal,
would also improve the internal living environment of the cottage, which would
better meet the needs of the appellant and his family. However, such benefits
would be largely private.
17. The aforementioned public benefits are balanced by the harm that would occur
to the listed building and CA. Furthermore, there is no substantive evidence
before me to suggest that the proposal is required to make the building
habitable or sustain the heritage asset. The continued viable use of the appeal
property as a cottage is therefore not dependent on the proposal, as the
building has an ongoing residential use that would not cease in its absence.
18. Taking the above together, the public benefits I have outlined above would not
justify allowing works that would fail to preserve the special interest of the
listed building and preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the
CA. Therefore, in accordance with paragraphs 193, 194 and 196 of the
Framework, considered together, I am not persuaded that there would be
wider public benefits of sufficient magnitude to outweigh the great weight to be
given to the less than substantial harm that I have identified to the significance
of the heritage assets.
19. I therefore conclude that the appeal proposal would fail to preserve the special
historic interest of the Grade II listed building and preserve or enhance the
character and appearance of the Ryhall Conservation Area and, thereby, their
understanding and significance as heritage assets. Hence, the proposal would
fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act, paragraphs 192, 193 and 194 of the
Framework and conflicts with the design and heritage aims of Policy CS22 of
the Rutland Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan
Document (Adopted July 2011) and Policy SP20 of the Rutland Local Plan Site
Allocations and Policies Development Plan Document (Adopted October 2014).
Other Matters
20. I note that the proposal would be unlikely to have a harmful effect in terms of
loss of light or privacy. However, consideration of this matter would not lead
me to a different conclusion on the main issue.
21. In granting consent for the approved scheme for the conversion of the attic/loft
space of the appeal property and the inclusion of two rooflights, the Council did
not find harm in relation to those works, as they also did not for the appeal
application. There is nothing before me that would lead me to a different
conclusion in respect of the effect of those parts of the proposal on the
significance of either the listed building or the CA. Given that those works are

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

4

Appeal Decision APP/A2470/Y/20/3259600

both physically and functionally severable from the proposed single storey front
porch extension, I consider a split decision would be a logical outcome.
22. As this appeal would equate to a new standalone permission, the requirements
of the conditions imposed on the approved scheme would need to be met again
through conditions imposed in connection with the appeal. These are referred
to below and set out above.
Conditions
23. In terms of the conversion of the attic/loft space and the rooflights, in addition
to the standard time limit, in the interests of clarity I have specified the
approved plans that specifically relate to that part of the proposal only (as
submitted for the approved scheme). In the interests of preserving the special
interest of the listed building and ensuring consistency with the approved
scheme, a condition for the details of the new staircase is necessary, but I have
altered the wording of that condition to enable other works associated with the
conversion to take place prior to those details being agreed. Moreover, as they
are not referred to in the Council’s condition, there would be no need to restrict
them from being undertaken. I have also removed unnecessary wording
relating to the reason for the condition contained in its text.
Conclusion
24. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed
insofar as it relates to the conversion of the existing attic/loft space for
habitable use, including the insertion of two rooflights, but dismissed insofar as
it relates to the erection of a single storey front porch.

Paul Thompson
INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

5