DCS Ref: 100-066-521 Written reps Year of Decision: 2010 Inspector: R MCCOY
County: SOUTH YORKSHIRE Summary of Decision: DISMISSED
Description:
Replacement extension of and house in multiple occupation (HMO) for 10 students from curtilage listed coachhouse and 3 selfcontained maisonettes from 9 bed grade 2 Listed Building and restoration works in suburb. No harm to Listed Building and setting from extension due to successful design intervention and demolition of ruinous extension but works of alteration and subdivision of dwelling harm historic plan form and loss of historic fabric of Listed Building . Harm to future residential amenity due to loss of privacy given reduced separation distances but no harm to neighbour residential amenity from noise and disturbance. No harm to highway safety as low parking provision sufficient and not cause demand for on street parking elsewhere. Abstract:
The conversion of a grade II listed church in South Yorkshire was held to be unacceptable because of the unsympathetic changes which were included within the scheme.
The appellants proposed converting the hall into three maisonettes aimed at the student housing market. In addition, a two storey extension would be added to a coach house situated within the grounds to create nine bedrooms in shared accommodation. The appellants stated that the layout of the hall was awkward and inefficient and retaining the existing staircases would be inefficient and unacceptably restrict the use of the building and entail undue cost. They also asserted that a feasibility study had demonstrated that all other uses were unviable.
An inspector noted that part of the coach house was in a ruinous condition and the proposed extension would be unashamedly modern. In his view this part of the scheme would involve a successful design intervention which would fit into the local context and result in a successful contrast between old and new. However, the proposed conversion of the main hall would be less successful, he opined, involving both vertical and horizontal subdivision which would also necessitate the removal of two staircases. These, he decided, were evocative of the historic origins of the building and the insertion of five roof lights within the front roof slope and six at the rear would be visually dominant and harmfully affect its external appearance.
In his opinion, insufficient evidence had been submitted to demonstrate that it was unfeasible to retain the open and high ceiling character of the main space. The defining character of the building was the voluminous space and this would be completely removed by the current scheme. Although the property had undergone insensitive alterations and the scheme would restore many original features, this did not outweigh the adverse impact on is defining character, he ruled, also noting that the scheme would reduce the privacy of residents living adjacent to the site.
COMPASS Index Terms | Issue Codes | | 544 | | Loss of internal fixtures/fittings of old or listed building | | 545 | | Internal works or subdivision of old/listed building-argument that it affects historic fabric/internal pattern | | 550 | | Character or setting of Listed building | | 660 | | Too little on site parking | | 670 | | Development would cause pressure on parking elsewhere | | 700 | | Noise generated by proposal which would affect neighbours etc | | 710 | | Overlooking and privacy - Within proposed development | | 712 | | Where separation distance is an issue | | |
| Development Codes | | 501 | | Flat(s) | | 565 | | Multiple Occupation | | |
| Appeal Codes | | 001 | | Full | | 02 | | listed building consent - Appeal against refusal of . | | |
| Proposal Codes | | 222 | | C3 - Housing - extension to | | 922 | | C3 - Housing - Change of use | | |
| Site Codes | | 08 | | Residential suburban - Post August 06 cases | | |
|
