Property description

No 81 is a Georgian 4 bedroom terraced property built circa 1750 of rough coursed limestone with a slate covered pitched roof. The property is grade II listed and lies at the heart of an attractive market town and conservation area. The principal street (east) elevation has 3x2 vertical sliding sash windows with timber lintels and a panelled front door with moulded surround. To the rear of the property and set to one side is a later two storey brick built extension with casement windows, which is believed to have been built in 1978 when a building, believed to be a stable, was converted into a flat.

Internally the property has a basic cross passage plan form with entrance hall and single depth reception rooms each side. Rooms are narrow with short open backed wall panelling with simple moulded dado rail. Rooms to the first floor have partially vaulted ceilings with some exposed structural timbers. The kitchen is contained within the long narrow rear projection with a utility room and ground floor cloakroom at the far end.

A garden room extension with a part  pitched and part flat roof with a glazed lantern was added to the rear of the property in 2003. Beyond a patio area is a historic outbuilding and a large mature copper beech tree that benefits from statutory protection by virtue of its inclusion in the Conservation Area.  Given the domesticated nature of the site there is an unlikelihood of protected species being present within the site or premises. The property is abutted by No 79 to the south which has an obscure glazed window opening onto the patio behind the 2 storey extension. No79 is a former Victorian picture house converted to a dwelling.

Historic / aesthetic / communal value

The property is characteristic in design and construction of burgage plots that were long and narrow with a row of outbuildings stretching out to the rear of the house. Lower parts of the external wall to the rear extension appear to be made of original random coursed limestone from an older building. A three quarter height cellar below the main space provides further evidence. There are intrusions into this wall which have occurred previously such as French doors and window openings and appear to be comparatively modern interventions into this historic architectural feature.

At application stage the proposals were assessed against the known archaeological resource as contained in the MK Historic Environment Record and concluded that whilst within a heritage interest area the proposed development itself is not regarded as being of significant potential archaeological impact. As such a pre-determination archaeological investigation or condition was not required.

Evidential value

Initially thought to be listed for group value only, historical evidence was found to show it was once a public house named the Duke of William. The section of stone wall that remains is an indicator of part of the original footprint of the property as shown on historic maps, it is also significant evidentially as a former use of the property for either stabling to an inn or dwelling house of some prestige.

Heritage value

Research and on-site investigations led to an assessment of significance to identify the levels of importance of both physical and intangible elements of the place. This baseline was then used to inform the development and appropriate areas for extension or alteration. This informed approach helped to unlock the potential and produce a high quality design solution.

Proposal

The main focus of the design was to satisfy the owners aspirations to increase the size of the kitchen and relocate the utility & cloakroom spaces to improve natural light and access to the rear garden. Secondary considerations were the reversal of changes to the stair and loss of building fabric by the previous owners when constructing the garden room. The property already benefited from: photovoltaic panels, an eco-multi fuel stove, a home security system (fire / security) and mechanical heat recovery.

Extension

The initial design proposed to relocate the utility to the somewhat undervalued garden room and increase the size of the kitchen with a single storey addition with glazed gable end. In conjunction with removing an internal wall and developing the French doors and window sizes to allow greater natural light and access.  The Conservation Officer commented that whilst the extension would continue a  common pattern of development that would reflect the historic plots and character of the area, he expressed reservation at developing the openings unless it could be proven they were later intrusions and no harm would come to the historic fabric.

However, after making another site visit it was concluded that some of the openings could be developed, albeit not to any great extent, and the scheme was consented. At this time material costs increased considerably and made the project not viable. As a consequence, we developed a simpler scheme to develop the garden room in conjunction with developing the same openings. This too was also granted permission but never reached construction stage due to client circumstances and builder availability.

Two years passed and after the pandemic we were asked to simplify the previous consented extension scheme with a low key design in order to reduce the build cost and to renew the permission. Whilst similar in size and shape to that previously consented this design took a different appearance with a flat roof and walls finished with vertical larch battens.  The utility / cloak room effectively changed ends and the garden room unaltered to preserve natural light to the hall area. This was still considered acceptable in that it would not compete with the historic building in design, nor feign authenticity; neither are they ostentatious in contrast but present themselves as simple structures. Whilst the extension and fenestration alterations were deemed to sustain the significance of the listed building, acceptability was subject to conditions to ensure high quality materials and finish appropriate for a listed building.

Guidance consulted when approaching the retrofit design

• Historic England Publications
• LPA / Conservation Officer
• The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings
• Town Plan
• Design guide for extensions

Discoveries that caused the initial design to be revised

The size of the extension was reduced because of the impact on the Beech tree protected by a TPO in the rear yard. This required an alteration to the layout and the submission of an arboricultural impact assessment, tree protection plan and method statement in order to discharge planning conditions to demonstrate the tree is viably retained for the long term. An objection was received from No79 requesting further information about how and where the extension will be fixed to the party wall, access to their gutters, noise reduction methods, depth of footings, the impact of footings on their home, whether the extension would be built against their wall, damp issues, roof flashing and debris build up. A detailed structural survey was conducted by an engineer and further detailed information was provided to allay concerns.