Appeal 3332739

The appeal is dismissed.

The development has been implemented. I am therefore considering the appeal retrospectively.

The proposed development relates to the setting of listed buildings. Accordingly, I have had regard to the statutory duties set out in section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

The main issues are: • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • whether the development preserves the settings of adjacent listed buildings.

The appeal site comprises a parcel of land along [site address] , at its junction with [address]. The land is associated with [site address] , a large residential property to the south of the site.

The development comprises a section of fencing along the boundary of the site along [site address] . This measures approximately 1.8 metres high and encloses what was a grass verge. The enclosed area also includes a mature beech tree.

The stretch of fencing that forms part of this appeal is directly linked with fencing along the wider boundary of [site address] . That other fencing is understood to form part of a previous consent and I have not considered it any further in making my decision.

The fencing that forms part of the appeal scheme is highly prominent along [address] and [site address] . The evidence before me shows that the site previously consisted of an open grass verge with boundary treatments setback from the road. The full extent of the mature beech tree was also visible.

The position of the previous boundary treatment and open nature of the verge would have allowed a greater sense of openness in this location, retaining a verdant and rural lane character along [site address] in particular. This has been lost to the highly prominent and urban domestic feature. Whilst the mature tree, and other planting, is still visible over the existing fence, its presence has been lessened. Ultimately, the fencing has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

That contemporary interventions and fencing exist in other parts of [site address] and within the surrounding area are not sufficient reasons to overcome or outweigh the harm that I have identified. I also note that the fence panels have weathered somewhat since their original installation and that the site is argued to be within the village confines. However, this does not outweigh or overcome the harm identified.

Overall, I conclude that the proposal harms the character and appearance of the surrounding area, conflicting with the relevant provisions of Policies SP1, SP6, ENV3a and ENV5 of the Ashford Local Plan (LP, 2019). These policies, in summary and when taken as a whole, seek to ensure a high standard of development which respects its context, including where it relates to important rural features and vernacular buildings. This is in a similar vein to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) insofar as they relate to high quality design. Heritage - special interest and significance [site address] and Barn about 30 metres north west of [site address] , hereafter referred to as ‘the Barn’)

[site address] is a [name] listed building. It dates from the early-to-mid fourteenth century with later extensions and alterations. It is finished, predominantly, in painted ragstone with plain tiles over a prominent hipped roof structure. Based on the evidence before me, the special interest and significance of [site address] is largely derived from its historic and architectural interests. Important contributors in these regards, which are pertinent to the appeal, are its age and surviving historic fabric.

The Barn is a [name]* listed building. It is a timber framed building that dates from the early-to-mid fourteenth century. It is finished in timber weatherboarding and ragstone, with a plain tile hipped roof over. Based on the evidence before me, the special interest and significance of the barn is largely derived from its historic and architectural interests. Important contributors in these regards, which are pertinent to the appeal, are its surviving historic fabric and its historic association with [site address] as vernacular farmstead buildings.

Pertinent to this appeal, the special interest and significance of [site address] and Barn are also derived, in part, from their settings. The well enclosed grounds of [site address] are largely set away from public views. It is from these closely related grounds that the assets are best appreciated. This forms the immediate setting of the assets. The immediate setting contributes to the special interest and significance of the assets. Beyond this, the surrounding area is made-up of established development, open fields and mature landscaping. This surrounding area, which includes the appeal site, forms the wider setting of the assets. There is some, but limited, intervisibility between the wider setting and heritage assets. This moderates, to a degree, the contribution the wider setting makes to the special interest and significance of the assets.

The Church of [name] the Baptist (hereafter referred to as ‘the Church’) is a [name] listed building, which dates from the twelfth century, with many additional elements and alterations through the centuries. The building is predominantly finished in ragstone with a plain tiled roof over. Based on the evidence before me, the special interest and significance of the Church is largely derived from its historic and architectural interests. Important contributors in these regards are its age, surviving historic fabric and its ongoing ecclesiastical use.

Pertinent to this appeal, the building’s special interest and significance are also derived, in part, from its setting. The grounds and graveyard of the Church have an historic, visual and functional connection with the heritage asset. These grounds are clearly defined by boundary treatments including walls and mature landscaping. These grounds form the asset’s immediate setting, and it is from here that the asset is best appreciated. This immediate setting contributes considerably to the asset’s special interest and significance.

Beyond this, the surrounding area, of which the site forms a part, is made up of loosely arranged, predominantly residential, development together with open fields. The built form is indicative of the evolution of the surrounding village over time. Some glimpsed views of the asset are possible between gaps in landscaping, including from [site address] . This surrounding area forms the asset’s wider setting. The surrounding village development has altered how the asset is experienced to a degree. This moderates the contribution this wider setting makes to its special interest and significance. Heritage – appeal proposal and effects

The fence is stark and dominant in appearance. It has notably and harmfully eroded the historic and rural wider setting of [site address] and Barn. Although [site address] itself has historically formed a residential property, the addition of the overtly domestic fence has had a harmful urbanising effect. This diminishes the contribution that the wider setting makes to the significance of the heritage assets. Additionally, the fence detracts from and dilutes the modest and rural appearance of the access road to adjoining [site address] , weakening its contribution to the listed buildings.

The position and nature of the proposal relative to the Church, together with the limited intervisibility between it and the appeal site, means that the visually and physically separate relationship between the appeal site and the asset is maintained. The historic and architectural interests of the asset remain unaffected. Ultimately, the immediate and most of the wider setting that contributes to the significance of the assets remain undisturbed by the proposal.

Taking these factors into account, the proposal does not compromise the setting of the Church, rather it has a neutral effect that does not determinably alter how the asset is experienced and does not adversely affect the ability to appreciate the significance of the asset. Consequently, the setting of the Church, and the contribution that setting makes to the significance of the asset, is preserved.

Overall, I conclude that the development fails to preserve the [name] listed building, [site address] , and [name]* listed Barn, and their settings. Consequently, the development has harmed the significance of these designated heritage assets. In doing so, it is contrary to the requirements of Section 66(1) of the Act.

Paragraph 205 of the Framework advises that when considering the impact of a development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to their conservation. Paragraph 206 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting and that this should have clear and convincing justification.

With reference to Paragraphs 207 and 208 of the Framework, in finding harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, the magnitude of that harm should be assessed. Given the extent of the development relative to the listed buildings and their settings, as a whole, I find the harm to be ‘less than substantial’ in this instance but, nevertheless, of considerable importance and weight. Under such circumstances, Paragraph 208 advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the development, which includes securing the asset’s optimum viable use.

I accept that listed buildings need to evolve. However, I am not persuaded that the scheme before me is fundamentally necessary to secure the optimum viable use of the building. There is no substantive evidence before me setting out the public benefits of the scheme. As such, clear and convincing justification for allowing the appeal has not been demonstrated. The primary outcome of the proposal is a private benefit to the appellant.

Overall, there are insufficient public benefits before me to outweigh the considerable importance and weight that I attach to the harm I have found. Accordingly, the development fails to preserve the settings of [name] listed building, [site address] , and [name]* listed building, the Barn. Accordingly, the development is contrary to the requirements of Section 66(1) of the Act, and the relevant provisions of the Framework which seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment. The development also conflicts with the relevant provisions of [name] ENV3a and ENV13 which, taken as a whole, seek to protect heritage assets.

Even were I to find the proposal to be acceptable in respect of heritage, this would not overcome the harm I have identified under the other main issue.

The appellant has set out the option of removing the appeal scheme fencing and replacing it on the same alignment as the former fence panels. The appellant argues that this is their fallback position.

Given that the fallback scheme would not wholly achieve the desired outcome of the appellant, and the appeal scheme has already been implemented, I cannot be certain that there is any greater than a theoretical possibility that the fallback scheme would be implemented. More importantly, in omitting the appeal scheme, the fallback scheme would be considerably less harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area and to the significance of the nearby listed buildings. As such, it does not justify allowing the appeal. In this respect, I attach little weight to the fallback position.

Previously approved works are noted. However, these do not appear to relate directly to the area relating to the appeal scheme. Accordingly, that those permissions exist does not change my conclusion on the main issues.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan. There are no material considerations which indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.