Case Reference: 3358245

Appeal Decisions
Site visit made on 1 April 2025
by Zoe Raygen Dip URP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 10th April 2025
Appeal A Ref: APP/A1530/W/24/3358245
The Manse Crayes Green, Layer Breton, Colchester CO2 0PN
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against the decision of Colchester City Council.
• The application Ref is 241549.
• The development proposed is first floor rear extension.
Appeal B Ref: APP/A1530/Y/24/3356973
The Manse Crayes Green, Layer Breton, Colchester CO2 0PN
• 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 [APPELLANT] against the decision of Colchester City Council.
• The application Ref is 241550.
• The work proposed is a first floor rear extension
Decision
1. Appeal A is dismissed.
2. Appeal B is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
3. The two appeals concern the same scheme under different, complementary
legislation. I have dealt with both appeals together in my reasoning.
4. As the appeals relate to a listed building, I have had special regard to section 16(2)
and section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act
1990 (the Act).
Main Issue
5. The main issue for both appeals is the effect of the development and works on the
special architectural and historic interest of the listed building.
Reasons
Significance
6. The Manse is a grade II listed building dating from the early nineteenth century. It
is two storeys with rendered brick work and a grey slate hipped roof. Its
significance is largely derived from its architectural and historic interest as an early
example of residential accommodation in the area.
7. It has had a modern porch, two storey rear extension and rear single storey
extension. Nevertheless, the rear of the original simple dwelling is legible.
Impact
8. The proposal for a rear extension above the existing single storey rear offshoot
would conceal much of the remainder of the original two storey part of the rear
elevation. Cumulatively with the previous extensions it would significantly erode
and upset the balance and rhythm of the building’s simple form and structure,
harming its significance.
9. While the extension has been set down and in at the side, it nevertheless sits
awkwardly on the catslide roof of the single storey offshoot, obscuring the historic
fabric, including the route of the chimney even though it would physically remain.
Furthermore, while the eaves level would match that of the two storey rear offshoot
it would sit beneath that of the main rear elevation reinforcing the awkwardness of
the addition. The use of render while making it clear the extension is a later
addition would further harmfully highlight the obtrusive nature of the extension.
10. Listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic
interest, irrespective of whether public views of the proposal would be available.
Therefore, irrespective of where it is visible from and, even though it is on the rear
elevation, harm would be caused to the significance of the building by harmfully
eroding the legibility and features of the original building and forming an obtrusive
addition which would have competing volume and roof forms overcomplicating
what was a simple rear elevation. The proportions of the window in the rear
elevation of the proposed extension would not sit well with those existing.
However, this could be addressed through the imposition of a condition if the
proposal was otherwise acceptable.
11. The proposal also involves the removal of a window in the existing side elevation
of the house and the enlargement of the opening to form a doorway into the
shower room as well as the removal of rafters to the existing ground floor rear
offshoot. However, these works would be minimal and not harm the significance of
the building overall.
Balance
12. Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework)
advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of
designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to their conservation.
Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through
the alteration or destruction of those assets or from development within their
setting and that this should have a clear and convincing justification.
13. With reference to paragraphs 214 and 215 of the Framework, in finding harm to
the significance of designated heritage assets, the magnitude of that harm should
be assessed. Given the fairly limited nature and extent of the proposed
development and works I find the harm to be less than substantial in this instance
but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight.
14. Under such circumstances, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this
harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, which
includes securing of optimum viable use of listed buildings. The proposal would
provide an additional shower room for the building however this would be a private
benefit and there is no meaningful substantive evidence before me that confirms
that this work is the only way of securing the optimum viable use or that the
buildings preservation would be at risk if the appeal were to fail and the proposal
was not implemented.
15. The appellant states that if this appeal is allowed, then it will allow, subject to
future consent, the removal of the cramped shower-room to the front of the
landing, thereby returning the landing to its original arrangement with the front
window day-lighting the stairs and landing. However, this is not part of the current
proposal and there is nothing before me to ensure that this would go ahead were
the appeal to be allowed. Therefore, I can only give it very minor weight.
16. There would also be some limited economic benefits from the construction works
but the public benefits as a whole would not be sufficient to outweigh the great
weight I give to the harm caused to the significance of the building. Given the
above and in the absence of any significant public benefit, I conclude that, on
balance, the proposal would fail to preserve the special architectural and historic
interest of the Grade II listed building. This would fail to satisfy the requirements of
the Act, paragraph 212 of the Framework and conflict with policies SP7, DM16 and
DM15 of the Colchester Borough Local Plan 2017-2033 adopted 2022. Together,
these require that development protects, conserves or enhances townscape, and
the significance of heritage assets as well as all development responding positively
to local character and context.
Other Matters
17. The appellant received advice under the Council’s pre-application enquiry service.
While he contends that he has complied with that advice, the letter makes it clear
that any revised proposal would still need to be considered carefully in terms of
any cumulative impacts to the listed building, when considered in conjunction with
the impact of existing extensions to the building. Furthermore it states that the
comments do not prejudice the formal consideration of the matter.
Conclusion
18. Appeal A: The proposal would not be in accordance with the development plan
and material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the
proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development
plan. Therefore, for the reasons given above I conclude that, the appeal should be
dismissed.
19. Appeal B: For the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.
Zoe Raygen
INSPECTOR