Ribble Valley Borough Council

DELEGATED ITEM FILE REPORT - REFUSAL

Ref: AD/EL
Application No: / 3/2013/0648/P (PA) & 3/2013/0649/P (LBC)
Development Proposed: / Demolition of the existing dilapidated modern extension and replacement with a similar sized stone and glazed orangery at Browsholme Cotes, Clitheroe Road Cow Ark

CONSULTATIONS: Parish/Town Council

Bowland forest Lower Division Parish Council - No objections to this proposal.

CONSULTATIONS: Highway/Water Authority/Other Bodies

English Heritage – Do not wish to offer any comments on this occasion. Recommend determination in accordance with national and local policy guidance and on basis of RVBC specialist conservation advice.
RVBC (Engineering) – Condition suggested relating to the event of contamination being found on site.
Historic amenity societies:
Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings – the existing conservatory is a most unfortunate addition that does detract from the former agricultural and rural character of the house and barn, and the overall group. However, owing to the materials of construction, it appears that it could be removed fairly easily and without any great damage to the historic fabric. The domestic and classically inspired design of the structure is not suited to the character of this group, nor is the location at which it was erected architecturally successful. The quality of the construction may also be questionable. However, designing a suitable replacement is not straightforward. Indeed, now appears to be an opportune time to ask if the principle of any replacement structure in this location is appropriate, and whether there are any other less harmful alternatives.
The existing conservatory partly obscures the clear architectural break between the barn and the house, which is an important visual and physical element in this group. Regrettably, the new orangery will also over sail this junction. The strong agricultural character that comes from the continuous, stark and unpunctured elevation of the barn, and the contrast of this with the now well fenestrated rear of the house are also key elements of the character and interest of this group. Unfortunately, and despite the change in the materials of construction, the design of the new orangery is domestic in character and would therefore continue to weaken and harm the clear agricultural character of the barn. The orangery is also larger than the existing conservatory and would be of more permanent construction, the solidity of which would result in an increased visual intrusion.
The application drawings are somewhat limited and do not include any floor plans. There are also no elevations of the west side of the existing conservatory and proposed orangery, although both ‘as existing’ and ‘as proposed’ drawings of the east elevation have been included. The absence of floor plans means that no assessment can usefully be made of how the existing conservatory accommodation relates to the rest of the dwelling. Furthermore, the absence of this detail means that the need and form of that which is proposed cannot be fully justified, and it also limits the exploration of possible alternative solutions. The junction and roof detail of the proposed extension at the point of the south walls of the barn and the house, and the west wall of the orangery, appears particularly awkward. It is not clear how this arrangement would be achieved or exactly how it would appear from the west without the necessary ‘as existing’ and ‘as proposed’ elevations.
Agree that the existing conservatory is not a sympathetic and successful extension. However, SPAB strongly advise that the proposed scheme is also not appropriate and would cause harm to the special interest and significance of the barn and house, and the overall group. SPAB therefore encourage the exploration of other possible solutions/locations for extension.

CONSULTATIONS: Additional Representations.

No representations have been received.
RELEVANT POLICIES:
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
Policy ENV20 - Proposals Involving Partial Demolition/Alteration of Listed Buildings.
Policy ENV19 - Listed Buildings (setting).
Policy G1 - Development Control.
Policy ENV1 - Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Policy H10 - Residential Extensions.
NPPF
HEPPG
Policy SPG – “Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings”
Ribble Valley Core Strategy Regulation 22 Submission Draft:
Policy DME4 – Protecting Heritage Assets.
Policy DMG1 – General Considerations.
POLICY REASONS FOR REFUSAL:
Harmful to character of Browsholme Cotes, setting of Browsholme Hall and significance of the historic designed landscape heritage asset because of its prominent and dominant form and siting which obscures the agricultural character of the barn and the important architectural break between domestic and agricultural elements. RVBC Policies ENV20, ENV19, G1 and H10, NPPF Paragraph 17, 131 and 132, 'Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings' SPG and CSReg.22 SD Policies DME4 and DMG1.
COMMENTS/ENVIRONMENTAL/AONB/HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES/RECOMMENDATION:
Browsholme Hall is a Grade I house of the early 17th century, with early 18th century east wing, west cross-wing rebuilt 1805 to designs by Geoffrey Wyatt and dining room added in 1807. It is known for its south elevation portico “of 3 storeys, its 2 sets of paired columns being inaccurate versions of the classical orders” (list description) which Pevsner notes is called “Stonyhurst’s little brother” (The Buildings of England: Yorkshire West Riding, 2001). To the south is the Sundial, South of Main Doorway (Grade II) and the Pair of Gatepiers Approximately 50 metres South South West of Browsholme Hall (Grade II).
The approach to Browsholme Hall from the West Lodge (Grade II listed) passes through a collection of former hall ancillary buildings (Stables, Mews Farmyard, Browsholme Farmhouse, Barn, Pair of houses and barn) all of which are Grade II listed. The proposed development relates to the ‘Pair of houses at east of southern side of farmyard, and barn adjoining to west’. The list description (16 November 1983) identifies the houses to be late 17th century and altered. The barn adjoining to the right is possibly early 19th century.
Browsholme Hall is set within a historic designed landscape. ‘A Local List of Lancashire’s Unregistered Historic Designed Landscapes’ (Lancashire Gardens Trust, Manchester Metropolitan University and Lancashire County Council, 2013) considers the landscape to be ‘Nationally Important’.
The South (Front) Lodge is Grade II listed and is shown on the 1909-14 OS at the start of a sweeping approach to the front of the hall from the south. This map also appears to show that the southern service buildings were hidden from the south approach by walling.

Relevant planning history

No pre-application advice has been sought in respect to the revised or original proposals.
3/2012/0040 & 0041 - Demolition of existing dilapidated modern extension and replacement with a similar size store and glazed orangery with modest internal alteration to the kitchen. LBC & PP refused 13 March 2012 “unduly harmful to the character (including setting) of Browsholme Cotes, the setting of Browsholme Hall and the significance of the historic designed landscape heritage asset because of its prominence, size, dominant form, obscuring of architectural detail and loss of important historic fabric”.
BO1464 - convert existing outbuildings into private residential accommodation. Permission granted 23 July 1969. I note that the existing building was referred to as ‘carpenters shop and garages’; the plans refer to ‘reclaimed, reconstructed surrounds’; there is no reference to a refacing and the new drawing room extension stonework is to ‘match existing’.
BO1516 – amend details of conversion of outbuildings. Permission granted 23 February 1970. I note ‘new window’ and ‘new door’ shown at ground floor and new windows at first floor; at the other end of the building there is reference to ‘existing stone wall reconstructed as required’.
BO1917 – new garage, store and conservatory. Permission granted 26 January 1973.
Legislation, policy and guidance
Section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that when considering applications for listed building consent, special regard shall be had to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 states that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development that affects a listed building or its setting, the local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.
Mrs Justice Lang’s recent judgement in East Northamptonshire has confirmed that ‘desirability’ means ‘sought-after objective’ and that ‘in order to give effect to the statutory duty under section 66(1), a decision-maker should accord considerable importance and weight to ‘the desirability of preserving … the setting’ of listed buildings when weighing this factor in the balance with other ‘material considerations’ which have not been given this special statutory status’.
The Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan (June 1998) is particularly relevant at Policies ENV20, ENV19, ENV1, G1 and H10.
The NPPF is particularly relevant at paragraph 6, 7, 8, 14, 17, 56 - 58, 60 - 61, 64, 115, 125, 126, 128 – 129, 131-135, 137, 186- 191, 196-197, 215- 216 and Annex 2 definitions.
The HEPPG is particularly relevant at paragraph 80, 113 – 122, 142-143, 152, 178 - 180, 182, 185 – 187, 192 and 195.
The Ribble Valley Core Strategy Regulation 22 Submission Draft is particularly relevant at Policies DME4 and DMG1.
English Heritage state that whilst ‘The Setting of Heritage Assets’ (English Heritage, October 2011) contains references that are now out of date, it still contains useful advice and case studies. It is stated that:
“the cumulative impact of incremental small-scale changes may have as great an effect on the setting of a heritage asset as a large-scale development” (4.5).
“arguments about the sensitivity of a setting to change should not be based on the numbers of people visiting it. This will not adequately take account of qualitative issues, such as the importance of quiet and tranquillity as an attribute of setting; constraints on the public to routinely gain access to a setting because of remoteness or challenging terrain; or the importance of the setting to a local community who may be few in number” (2.4).
“where the significance of a heritage asset has been compromised in the past by unsympathetic development affecting its setting … consideration still needs to be given to whether additional change will further detract from … the significance of the asset” (2.4).
“The setting of some heritage assets may have remained relatively unaltered over a long period and closely resemble the setting in which the asset was constructed or first used. The likelihood of this original setting surviving unchanged tends to decline with age and, where this is the case, it is likely to make an important contribution to the heritage asset’s significance ... the recognition of, and response to, the setting of heritage assets as an aspect of townscape character is an important aspect of the design process for new development, and will, at least in part, determine the quality of the final result” (2.5).
‘Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment’ (English Heritage, 2008) identifies four groups of heritage values: Evidential, Historical, Aesthetic and Communal.
‘Constructive Conservation in Practice’ (English Heritage, 2008) states “Constructive Conservation is the broad term adopted by English Heritage for a positive and collaborative approach to conservation that focuses on actively managing change.
The aim is to recognise and reinforce the historic significance of places, while accommodating the changes necessary to ensure their continued use and enjoyment …
… The Principles also underline the importance of a systematic and consistent approach to conservation. In order to provide this consistency, we are guided by a values-based approach to assessing heritage significance”.
The ‘Building in Context Toolkit: New Development in Historic Areas’ (CABE, EH, the architecture centre) identifies 8 building in context principles.
‘Extensions and Alterations to Dwellings: Ribble Valley Borough Council supplementary planning guidance’ (adopted September 2000) states:
‘Any extension should reflect the character of the original house and the wider locality’ (5.2). An accompanying illustration suggests that this policy applies to window details;
‘As a general rule any extension should not dominate the original house. This is particularly important in relation to buildings of historic or architectural importance’ (5.2);
‘Size – the size of an extension is an important consideration. Over-large extensions can dominate the original dwelling, they are also more likely to harm the amenities of neighbours’ (5.2)
‘In Conservation Areas and open countryside size controls will be more strictly applied. Extensions which lead to properties becoming significantly more prominent will not be allowed. Part of the character of these areas is the stock of relatively small cottages ... it should be noted that even small extensions can be prominent if they are not carefully sited and designed … the cumulative impact of a number of smaller extensions can be as damaging as single over intensive proposals. Therefore all applications will be assessed with regard to the original dwelling’’ (5.2);
‘Windows and doors - The type of windows and doors used, and their positioning are an important part of any development. It is often best to follow the style of the original house’ (5.2).
‘Appendix 1 – Statement of Public Consultations’.
Ribble Valley Districtwide Local Plan paragraph 5.13.19 states:
“Extensions and Additions – farm buildings are operational structures with a functional simplicity which is part of their appeal. Changes to the roof slope, amendments to the eaves line, addition of porches and chimney stacks will contribute to complexity and a loss of original character. It is important that farm buildings are preserved in their original form without alien, urban additions or alterations”.
The Inspector’s recent consideration (APP/T2350/A/12/2174422, Cherry Hall, Grindleton) of the Forest of Bowland AONB as an acknowledged heritage asset (paragraph 12) is noted (see also NPPF paragraph 115).
The Forest of Bowland AONB (Draft Outline) Management Plan (July 2013) states:
“The natural beauty of AONBs is partly due to nature, and is partly the product of many centuries of human modification of ‘natural’ features. Landscape encompasses everything – ‘natural’ and human – that makes an area distinctive: geology, climate, soil, plants, animals, communities, archaeology, buildings, the people who live in it, past and present, and perceptions of those who visit it.