Appeal 3307040

The appeal is dismissed.

The reason for refusal and officer delegated report refer to the retention of an existing boundary fence. The appellant has confirmed that this is a temporary fence and does not form part of the development proposed. The fence does not form part of the appeal description and is not included for retention within the submitted appeal documents. On this basis, I have not taken it into account in coming to my decision.

Within the context of this appeal, it is not for me to determine whether the grasscrete driveway and parking area require planning permission or constitute development. If the appellant wishes to ascertain whether this element of the appeal would be lawful, they may make an application under section 192 of the Act. In any case, the grasscrete driveway and parking area have been applied for and included within the description of development. On this basis, I have taken them into account in coming to my decision.

In determining this appeal involving the setting of a listed building located within a Conservation Area, I have had special regard to sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

Policy DM7 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan [name] 2017 (draft LP) is referred to in the Council’s decision. In accordance with paragraph 48 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), I note that the Local Plan Submission Version has been submitted for [name] and the Inspector has submitted their interim advice. Policy DM7 is not wholly in accordance with the Framework and, as requested as part of the interim advice, amendments to Policy DM7 are required. For these reasons, I have attached limited weight to this policy within my decision.

The main issues are whether the development would preserve the setting of the [name] listed [name] and whether the development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Chipping Ongar Conservation Area.

1 [address] comprises one of a pair of two storey semi-detached late 18th Century cottages, known as [name]. The cottages are prominently located along [address], with modest front gardens laid to grass. A hedgerow runs across the frontage of both cottages, immediately adjacent to [address], which reinforces their prominence.

The cottages are located within Chipping Ongar Conservation Area and immediately adjacent to [name] scheduled ancient monument.

[name], together with [address], a grade II listed building opposite, create a ‘pinch-point’ marking the historic northern entrance to the conservation area.

The significance of the listed building is derived from its ‘pinch-point’ gateway location into the conservation area, their dominant position and their soft, green frontage.

The conservation area encompasses the historic town centre of Ongar, through which [address] runs broadly north to south, and the [name] scheduled ancient monument.

The scheduled ancient monument comprises the remains of the former motte and bailey castle and its associated moat, which adjoins the appeal site. The section of the scheduled ancient monument that adjoins the appeal site and [address] formed the historic northern boundary of the town enclosure. This section is still visible and covered by mature trees.

The significance of the conservation area is derived from its historic town centre core, including the scheduled ancient monument, its strong building lines, which enclose [address], and ‘pinch-points’ which mark the historic northern and southern entrance and exit to the historic core of the town.

The development proposes the removal and replanting of the existing hedgerow further into the appeal site, away from its current boundary with [address]. This arrangement would erode the dominant frontage of [name] and weaken the ‘pinch point’ gateway into the conservation area, causing harm to both the setting of the listed buildings and character and appearance of the conservation area.

The development would also result in the loss of a section of green frontage, through the permanent removal of a section of hedgerow and introduction of a reclaimed brick surface. This would create a hard and formalised sub-urban feature, at odds with the appeal site’s historic location and green frontage. This would not preserve or enhance the setting of the listed building, or the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Additional planting and a post and rail fence are proposed along the appeal site boundary that adjoins the scheduled ancient monument. Whilst the planting would not affect the scheduled ancient monument, it would erode the current historic boundary between the two heritage assets and further weaken the entry point into the historic core of the town. This would cause harm to both the setting of the listed buildings and character and appearance of the conservation area.

The use of grasscrete would not fully replicate the soft, green appearance of the existing surface and would primarily be located to the side and rear of 1 [address]. The use of grasscrete would therefore result in harm to the designated heritage assets.

Other development within close proximity of the appeal site has been brought to my attention to demonstrate that the heritage assets are not set in isolation and are close to other modern development. I noted the wider setting and other nearby development during my site visit. I have however dealt with the proposal on its own merits and in the context of its surroundings.

I conclude that the proposal would harm the setting of the listed building and fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Chipping Ongar Conservation Area. As a result, the development would result in harm to the significance of these designated heritage assets.

As required by paragraph 199 of the Framework, great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets, irrespective of the amount of harm identified.

Nevertheless, that harm to the setting of the listed building and the character and appearance of the conservation area would be less than substantial.

Paragraph 202 of the Framework states that if a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, then this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

The proposal would provide benefits for the current occupiers of 1 [name], through the provision of off-street parking. This would reduce the reliance on public car parks and costs associated with using them. It would also provide a greater level of convenience for the occupiers to park within the grounds of their property.

The benefits before me are primarily private rather than public. As a result, they would be insufficient to outweigh the great weight I must attach to the harm I have identified to the designated heritage assets.

For these reasons, the vehicle access, driveway and parking area would conflict with saved Policies HC6, HC7 and HC12 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan 1998 (LP), Policy DM7 of the draft LP and the Framework. Collectively, these policies seek, amongst other things, to ensure development does not adversely affect the setting of listed buildings and is not detrimental to the character, appearance or setting of the conservation area. The Framework seeks to protect and enhance the historic environment.

For the above reasons, having considered all the policies drawn to my attention, the conflict with Policies HC6, HC7 and HC12 of the LP lead me to conclude that there is conflict with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations that indicate I should conclude other than in accordance with the development plan. Consequently, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.