Context 181

CONTEXT 181 : SEPTEMBER 2024 11 service runs in a rather haphazard arrangement. However, the proposed change of use of part of the building to residential would involve extensive servicing, eg plumbing for the bathrooms, and likely in locations where there is either none or very little as existing, eg at second-floor level where the bathroom is proposed. It is therefore not clear what the effect of the revised services on the historic fabric and appearance of the building would be. Because of this uncertainty, and with no guarantee that the revised services could be achieved without causing unacceptable harm to the significance of the building, this information cannot be reserved for the detail to come forward by condition.’ The inspector concludes that this is a determining factor in the decision and that the proposal fails to comply with the requirements of s16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended). The appeal was dismissed. Accurate description of proposed works (Refs 3324278 and 3324318, linked): A listed building appeal related to a Grade II*-listed building, adjacent to another Grade II*-listed building within a London Borough of Lambeth conservation area. This has been comprehensively reported, but my main reason for referring to it relates to the inadequate description of the proposed works. The inspector states (paragraph 6 and 7): ‘It is imperative that the description of works is accurate and unambiguous to avoid doubt about what is proposed. The uncertainty generates serious reservations as to whether this element of the proposal could even be implemented. These matters are highly undesirable in general terms, but even more so given the building’s Grade II* listed status, a designated heritage asset of the highest significance. Taking the above into account, I am unable to properly assess whether this element of the proposal would preserve the Grade II* listed building… or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Consequently, I cannot reasonably determine whether this element of the proposal would meet the requirements of section 16(2) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.’ It is important to ensure that the description accurately reflects the proposed works. This case was complex in that there had been several schemes and refusals, but not all had been appealed, such that the planning and listed building appeal proposals were not the same. The inspector reported that the appeal process was not a mechanism to evolve a scheme and applied the case of Holborn Studios Ltd v LB of Hackney [2017] WLR(D) 752 [2017] EWHC 2823. This case refers to Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE and Another on whether plans submitted during the appeal process should be accepted. The inspector went on to apply the substantive and procedural tests identified in the Holborn Studios case. The appeal was dismissed. Contextual design and enabling development failures (Ref 3297866): This appeal from Mole Valley District Council was a nondetermination case relating to a fortified medieval castle ruin. The owner wished to erect a dwelling, garden walls, potting shed and associated works. The castle is a listed building and part of a scheduled ancient monument, located within the green belt and in an area of special landscape value. The owner’s aim was to build a home with an increased value in land following the grant of planning permission, creating an endowment for the maintenance of the castle, which has been on the heritage-atrisk register for 25 years. The inspector considered that through its modern design, mass and relationship to the historic site, the proposed dwelling would create ‘fundamental harm’ by ‘carving up the site and introducing a use and development… entirely at odds with the castle and its setting.’ The appeal was dismissed. Solar farm within the setting of heritage assets (Ref 3337226): The installation of a groundmounted solar farm, battery storage and associated development within the setting of several scheduled ancient monuments and listed buildings was allowed, despite harm being identified. Historic England stated that it would be ‘harmful as a result of the marked change from a rural landscape to a large industrial development with fields of photovoltaic panels and associated infrastructure.’ However, the less than substantial harm was outweighed by the significant benefits of providing energy that would contribute to national targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and provide power to the grid. The appeal was allowed. Alexandra Fairclough is a member of the IHBC law panel and a barrister. She teaches heritage law at Manchester School of Architecture, and works as a design and conservation officer.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzI0Mzk=