6 C O N T E X T 1 2 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 2 Gentrification and the NPPF James Moir tells the story of an appeal decided in the light of the National Planning Policy Framework. Such a small thing. The picture on the left shows a very unassuming, simple latch to a backstair door; on the right is what the present owner had introduced without listed building consent. Now, four years after the change came to light, an appeal against refusal of retrospective listed building consent has finally been dismissed. The owner put up a barrage of reasons why the latch had been replaced, contending that the latch was broken, was a fire risk, had little historical value (a submitted statement from former occupiers of the dwelling stated that they themselves had installed it, prior to listing). The inspector for the appeal stated that ‘these considerations do not persuade me to allow works that I consider to be harmful to the special interest of the listed building’ and ‘I consider that the ornate style of the replacement latch is at odds with the simple, austere appearance of the host door and the detailing of the rooms and the separate stairway serving this part of the listed building’. While the case for our sector has been won, should we be asking: ‘As conservation officers, haven’t we all got better things to do?’ That was what the appellant asked, and it was a view shared by some key individuals at the local planning authority. If this had been the only issue at the property, I would probably have to agree, given that bigger battles are being fought to defend the historic environment against major threats such as resource depletion in conservation teams. However, a raft of other issues vindicate the effort and time exerted in achieving this encouraging decision. The latch was in fact one of three appeals, the other two also having been dismissed. To understand the nuances of these two other appeals, it is important to understand the evolution of this farmhouse. It is a listed building, located in the Chilterns AONB, lying close to Hemel Hempstead in Hertfordshire. The central core of the house was originally a two-cell lobby entrance, timber-framed structure with a kitchen and parlour flanking a large central brick stack, all dating to the early 17th century. It has grown organically at each end. The first extension was to the north, probably in the mid-to-late 17th century, when a two-storey cross-wing was added. In the mid 18th century, the farmhouse was further extended by adding a further service bay to the south. The first appeal dealt with plaster that had been removed from various areas in the house. It was accepted that the previous owners had created an unfortunate precedent by stripping off plaster in the cross-wing parlour and kitchen, as evidenced by the historic buildings report (by BEAMS) which the owner himself had fortunately commissioned shortly after buying the property. The report’s photographs clearly helped to identify these new areas of loss. One of the most damaging has been the removal of plaster adjacent to the principal staircase, itself an addition probably in the 1720s or 1730s, when the former parlour was converted to a large hallway. The staircase has clearly been brought from another location.When it was inserted, the old parlour fireplace was plastered over. The owner claimed that ‘the original lime plaster was loose and fell off when the staircase was being refurbished’. ‘Refurbish’ is not an accurate term for the total dismantling, sanding and re-erection of the staircase – all done without listed building consent, and unnecessarily destructive both of original patina and adjacent surfaces. Now the exposed brickwork and fireplace adjacent to the staircase gives a visually confusing message and the staircase has lost its restrained backdrop. Other areas where plaster was removed included the entrance lobby, where the owner simply stated that leaving the brickwork exposed provided a practical finish in an area that suffered from dirt and wet. In the case of the upstairs landing, he argued differently, claiming that the removal of a poorly constructed panel of lath and plaster, and replacement with plasterboard, was more sustainable and better for fire resistance. Finally, plaster had been removed in the chamber over the parlour. From the BEAMS report it was clear that only one panel – to a former doorway – was plasterboard, whereas all the other panels were covered in lath and plaster. By the time of the appeal, the owner – despite the BEAMS report –was claiming that the whole wall had been covered in plasterboard and softwood battens installed before the date of listing in 1987. This was clearly the formerly exposed end gable of the house, a particularly valuable piece of evidence, providing possible clues as to lime mixes and possible external colouring used on external walls in the early 17th century, had been destroyed. The inspector concluded in these cases that exposing the brickwork underneath had altered the appearance of the rooms concerned, was visually jarring and detracted from the architectural integrity of the spaces in which they stood. The third appeal related to timber partitions, consisting of vertical tongue-and-groove boarding nailed to horizontal studs, which had been removed at the base and head of the An unassuming, simple latch to a backstair door and (right) its replacement
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=