42 CONTEXT 184 : JUNE 2025 as it failed to have special regard to the desirability of preserving heritage assets, including the listed buildings and the conservation area (s66 and s72 of the Planning [Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas] Act 1990). Nor had national policy on heritage assets been applied. The report was also considered misleading as it had failed accurately to record the extent of the consultees’ objections, especially those from heritage bodies, including some diluted information and some complete omissions. The council agreed that it had made legal errors and agreed to the decision being quashed. Essential repairs The owner of a listed building in Boston, Lincolnshire, was prosecuted for failing to carry out essential repairs to a historic property following warnings and the issue of a legal notice. A s215 notice was issued under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, stating that the proposed maintenance and repair works were necessary. Failure to carry out these works within a reasonable time resulted in a fine of £660, plus a victim surcharge of £264 and costs of £350, amounting to £1,274 in total. Planning appeals Impact on a non-designated heritage asset (Ref 3343408) The proposal included rebuilding the external fabric following a previous permission for works to an 18th-century farmhouse. The appellants did not dispute that it was a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). The issue at hand was the effect of the proposal on the NDHA and whether any harm was outweighed by its benefits. The farmhouse had both architectural and historical interest in the form of unusual details and ornamentation, but it had been extended and altered. The inspector considered that the rebuilding of part of the building using the existing rubble stone would result in difficulties, as reworking the rubble would result in changes and require new stone. The inspector also considered that the loss of the traditionally laid stone and its patina accumulated over previous centuries would create harm. Taking into account the previous works already approved, the inspector concluded that the act of demolishing and rebuilding the remaining elements would further undermine the integrity of the farmhouse, making it effectively a replica, and diminishing its architectural and historic interest. The appellants argued that the works would result in significantly lower carbon-dioxide emissions over a 60-year period, as stated in the submitted sustainable construction assessment, and would exceed building regulation standards for a new-build construction. The inspector did give positive weight to the need to support energy efficiency and low-carbon heating improvements, but any benefits would not outweigh the harm. Dismissed. A certificate of lawful use or development for solar panels (3349450) The appeal related to the installation of solar panels on the roof of a building within a conservation area. The applicants considered that the optimum position for solar gain was to site the panels on the front elevation of the dwelling, facing the highway. The council rejected this proposal, noting that more discreet and practicable alternative had not been demonstrated. This is controlled by Part 14 Class A of the General Permitted Development (England) Order 2015. The council originally raised concerns about A.2(a), which is a condition attached to the permission granted by the GPDO that the panels should be ‘so far as practicable, sited so as to minimise [their] effect on the external appearance of the building’. The appellant had provided evidence from the installation company that the estimated annual output from panels on the rear roof would be around 30 per cent less than on the front (2,876 kwh for the front and 1,994 kwh for the rear). The inspector did not consider this to be a big difference. The inspector went on to define the word ‘practicable’ and rejected the viability assessment submitted by the appellant in considering the meaning of that word. In any case, this did not overcome the requirement within the second part of the condition to ‘minimise its effect on the appearance of the building’. Dismissed. Please note that this is my selection of relevant heritage matters, and it is not intended to provide legal advice. Alexandra Fairclough is a member of the IHBC law panel and a barrister (non-practising). She teaches heritage law at Manchester School of Architecture and is principal built heritage and design officer at Bolton Council.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MzI0Mzk=