Appeal 3329725

The appeal is dismissed.

The National Planning Policy Framework 2023 (the Framework) was revised on 19 December 2023. The amendments made did not have a material bearing upon the issues in this appeal, and it was therefore not necessary to seek comments from the main parties upon it. [name] have referred to the Framework, it is that of the December 2023 version.

The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area (CA).

The CA, designated in 1978, is characterised by its dispersed arrangement of cottages, farmhouses and outbuildings with the green at its core. The CA was extended in 2022 to include more modern buildings, including the appeal building, though the sense of a rural settlement set amongst fields remains. The CA Review document (2022) notes that ‘building types, materials, construction methods and built forms still impart a strong and characterful sense of place’. The buildings include timber framed houses, some thatched, but also buildings made from local red brick. Within this part of the CA, most of the roofs are unbroken and this simplicity and consistency adds positively to the character of the area. Appeal Ref: APP/Y0435/D/23/3329725

The Review document describes [address] as ‘contemporary housing in a historically sensitive location’ where the houses adopt ‘stylised barn forms that echo the scale, volumes and materials found in rural farmsteads in the locality’ with a slightly reduced build height and with the main body of the dwellings at the back of the plot. These matters, largely shared by the appeal building, add positively to the significance of the CA as a whole.

The appeal property has a mainly unbroken red tile roof which, together with its red brick walls, adds positively to its attractive appearance within the CA. The proposed solar panels would cover a large proportion of the south facing roof of the main house. Their black colour and appearance on the red tile roof would have a significant and adverse impact upon its appearance and when seen from the adjoining access road.

The appellant has referred to houses within the CA which have solar panels attached to their roofs. However, on my site visit I was able to note that this is not a common occurrence and I do not consider that they represent a precedent. In any event, I have determined the appeal proposal upon its individual merits and considering the overall distinctive characteristics of the CA.

In this regard, I attach very significant weight to paragraph 205 of the Framework which states that ‘great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation’. In the context of paragraph 208 of the Framework, the proposed development would cause less than substantial harm to the CA. In such circumstances, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

I recognise that the proposed development would help to reduce carbon emissions and would thus lead to a public gain. I also give significant weight to paragraph 163 of the Framework which states that ‘even small-scale projects provide a valuable contribution to significant cutting greenhouse gas emissions.’

However, such a public gain would not in this instance outweigh the adverse harm which would be caused to the character and appearance of the CA. Moreover, I have no evidence before me to indicate that other options would not be available to secure sensitive energy efficiencies to the building, thereby making a positive contribution to environmental sustainability.

Therefore, on balance, I conclude that the proposed development would not accord with policies D1 and D2 of the [site address] Plan:MK 2016-2031 which require good design appropriate to the character of the site and surrounding area, or with policy HE1 which requires development to sustain or enhance the significance of heritage assets. It would also be contrary to chapter 16 of the Framework which requires the same, and with the Council’s Residential Design Guide Supplementary [name] 2012 which promotes good design.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.