Appeal 3303599

The appeal is dismissed

At the time of my site visit the development was already in place. I have considered the appeal on that basis and exactly as described on the application form.

The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area bearing in mind it would be within the setting of the grade II listed [site address] , the setting of the [name], a motte and bailey castle 300m west of [name] scheduled monument and within the Whitchurch Conservation Area.

The appeal property is a grade II listed dwelling and associated structures known as [site address] (No 5). It is within the Whitchurch Conservation Area (CA) and close to [name], a motte and bailey castle 300m west of [name] scheduled monument ([name]).

The Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), requires special regard to be given to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting and any features of architectural or historic interest it possesses. The same act also requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. Furthermore, paragraph 199 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that when considering the impact of new development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Significance of No 5, the CA and [name]

No 5 is a C17 two storey detached dwelling of brick, rubble stone and timber frame construction with a thatched roof. It has brick chimneys and casement windows of different ages. With an elongated form, it sits prominently close to the road along the [address] frontage. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal the significance of the grade II listed building derives from its traditional architectural detailing and prominent positioning on a narrow rural lane.

The CA covers a large part of Whitchurch and some of the surrounding agricultural countryside. It includes a variety of traditional properties some dating back to the medieval period. The buildings utilise traditional materials such as thatch, brick and slate and display many traditional architectural details. Thus, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, I find the significance of the CA is founded on the variety and quality of the traditional architecture and the positioning and layout of the buildings in relation to the surrounding countryside.

[name] is believed to date from the reign of Stephen, first mentioned by [name] in 1147. It served as a stronghold of the [name] and [name] families in the early years. It is an artificially scarped natural mound, with its top bounded around its northern arc by a low internal bank. Today, surrounded by mature trees and vegetation, the large, grassed mound appears as a tranquil semi-natural open space. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal the significance of the scheduled monument is derived from its ancient history as a medieval fortification which is still visually evident today through its landscape character. Effects on the significance of No 5, the CA and [name]

The development is two separate sections of timber fencing. The first is parallel with [address] and positioned just behind a low rubble stone boundary wall and verge between the side elevation of No 5 and a timber gate. The second section runs perpendicular to [address], between the same timber gate and thick hedging along the boundary between the appeal site and [name].

I acknowledge the fence panels are not attached to the listed building or the rubble stone boundary wall. I note the fencing has been hand built by a local contractor and has been designed to match the existing fencing on the opposite side of the appeal property which has been in place for some time. I also note that there are many other similar close boarded timber fences nearby related to traditional buildings and I have considered all the examples raised in the evidence. I also acknowledge the fencing provides privacy for the occupants of the appeal property.

However, although neither section of fencing is particularly wide, the first section rises significantly above the eaves and guttering of the listed building. Being so close to the listed building, this creates an awkward visual juncture between the obviously new timber fencing and the traditional materials and character of the listed building. The second section of fencing although some distance away from the dwelling, through its height and new un-weathered finish, is also visually prominent, such that when both tall modern sections of fencing are viewed together the visual conflict between the traditional listed building and the solid, tall modern sections of fencing is exacerbated. Thus, through their height and hard modern appearance both sections of fencing harm the setting and significance of No 5.

Consequently, as I have found the scheme to be harmful to the significance of a traditional building within the CA on a main route in and out of the CA, it follows, in this case, that the proposal would also fail to preserve the character, appearance and significance of the CA as a whole. Furthermore, positioned directly next to a footpath which passes by the scheduled monument, through its height and stark modern appearance the second section of fencing appears incongruous in the otherwise predominantly verdant setting of [name]. The fencing therefore also harms the setting and significance of the scheduled monument.

The harm I have identified to the significance of all three heritage assets would be less than substantial. In which case paragraph 202 of the Framework requires it to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposals, including where appropriate, securing optimum viable use.

It may be that landscaping could soften lower height fencing in the same location, however, without details I cannot be satisfied that such measures would overcome the harm I have identified. I acknowledge the fencing provides privacy for the occupants of the appeal property. However, even if I accepted this as a public benefit, it would not outweigh the great weight I must attach to the harm I have identified to the designated heritage assets.

In reaching these conclusions I have also noted the comments about the Council’s handling of the appellant’s proposals. However, I confirm I have determined the appeal on its planning merits only.

Overall, I find the development fails to preserve the grade II listed building and its features of special architectural or historic interest, harms the character, appearance and significance of the CA and harms the setting and significance of the scheduled monument. For these reasons the development conflicts with the development plan, particularly Policies BE1 and BE2 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan 2013-2033 (2021) which amongst other things seeks to ensure good design and that development does not cause harm to designated

For the reasons given above and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.