context

44 C O N T E X T 1 7 9 : M A R C H 2 0 2 4 into force on 1 January 2024. These, possibly the shortest amendment rules recently, relate to monuments conflicting with the role of the church. In practice, this is expected to mean monuments raising issues of contested heritage. As part of the amendment rules, 4.2(2)(ba) requires supporting documents to be provided to the relevant diocesan advisory committee. Proposals involve the movement, removal or alteration of a statue, plaque, memorial, monument or other article because it is considered to conflict with the role of a church as a local centre of worship and mission. This supporting document should explain how, in formulating the proposals, the intending applicants have had due regard to the relevant guidance issued by the Church Buildings Council. Energy efficiency The cross-government paper ‘Adapting Historic Homes for Energy Efficiency: a review of the barriers’, dated 3 January 2024, refers to issues relating to adapting and retrofitting historic buildings. The review looks at what is putting people off pursuing retrofit measures (Section 16 of the NPPF does not refer to climate change). The review sets out 55 actions to be taken as the next steps in these areas. These include consultations on: • opportunities for greater use of listed building consent orders to support energy-efficiency improvements to listed buildings • national development management policies specifically on improvements to historic buildings • reforms to energy performance certificates • changes to permitted development rights for heat pumps in England. Wales The Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2023 (HEWA23) received Royal Assent in 2023. It will not come into force until 2024, as secondary legislation and guidance updates are required. Planning court cases Simmonds, R (on the application of) v Venture Properties Group and Ors [2023] EWHC 2217 (KB) (15 September 2023) This decision relates to a successful judicial review in the High Court by Geoffrey Simmonds (the claimant) to set aside the decision of Blaby District Council (the defendant) to grant planning permission and listed building consent to demolish an old milking shed and construct dwellings in Braunstone Town. It was challenged on four counts and was successful on only two, including the most relevant here. Count 1: the officer reports misled councillors at the parish council meeting by failing to consider paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework. The old milking shed is contained within the curtilage of a Grade II listed farmhouse. Paragraph 196 of the NPPF provides that ‘evidence of deliberate neglect or damage to a heritage asset should not be taken into account in any decision’. This paragraph was not specifically mentioned in the reports, as officers did not consider that there was any evidence of deliberate neglect. However, a councillor raised the issue about the condition of the listed building at the parish council meeting. Officers told councillors that the maintenance of the building was not something they ‘get involved in’ and did not advise councillors of paragraph 196 (now paragraph 202 in the revised NPPF). R v Evetts A case heard in Gloucester Crown Court (heard in Winchester Crown Court) on 14 December 2023 between John Evetts and Cotswold District Council regarded unauthorised works to a Grade II listed building, Middle Hill Farm, Saintbury. This became national news as John Evetts was a key heritage adviser for the Landmark Trust and therefore knew that he was breaching planning laws. Between July 2020 and December 2021, Evetts undertook a wide range of works to the farmhouse without consent from Cotswold District Council. Pleading guilty, Evetts received a 12-month conditional discharge and is required to complete the outstanding works within this time. He was ordered to contribute £6,000 towards the council’s costs and pay a victim surcharge of £22. I understand that this case is unreported, but more information can be found in this earlier appeal decision and via Cotswold District Council’s website: Appeal A Ref: APP/F1610/F/22/3301911 Middle Hill Farm, Saintbury, Broadway, Gloucestershire, WR12 7PX. Appeals Ref APP/R3650/W/23/3326412 Land east of Knowle Lane, Cranleigh (dismissed) This appeal relates to a Section 78 planning appeal for housing development beyond the built- up boundary within the area of Waverley Borough Council. It was dismissed due to the impact on the landscape character and views, and the rural setting of several listed buildings. The inspector agreed that there would be a negative impact on the setting of a former farmstead by the introduction of new development, despite the fact that the farmstead was no longer in agricultural use, and had been converted to separate dwellings and curtilages.