Appeal 3346888

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the gate piers and gates upon the Charlton Conservation Area.

Charlton is a small village comprised in the area surrounding the appeal site by predominantly large detached houses of various ages and in a Cotswold vernacular style arranged along both sides of a single road, ‘ [site address] ’1. [site address] is one of a small group of recently constructed houses on the south side with two listed buildings2 also in residential use, in proximity.

The appellant seeks to retain a gate and associated stone pillars to a height of 1.8m. Otherwise, the frontage to [site address] is consistent with that of immediately neighbouring houses3 on the south side of [site address] in that a low dry stone wall at a broadly consistent height4 defines frontages behind a grassy verge, some with substantial planting which screens, or partly screens, the buildings within.

Dry stone wall by its inherent laminar form introduces a horizontal emphasis into [site address] scene. Where these walls exist it is their consistency in appearance and level continuity across adjoining plot frontages that appear as a unifying factor, making a distinctive contribution to the character and appearance of the public realm. By the nature of their mortarless construction, gaps for access or corners entirely lack articulation by pillars or other architectural device. 1 B4040 2 [address] (grade II) and Village Farmhouse grade II* 3 Some boundary treatments east and west of the site include an absence of walling and are typically planted 4 The appellant refers to a height of three feet.

Although much has changed within the village since the designation of the Charlton Conservation Area (CCA) and there are in consequence some discrepancies between the content of the character appraisal maps and what is currently found, these boundary treatments are identified in the CCA appraisal5 as making an important contribution to this part of the CCA and are referenced in such terms within the appraisal document.

The appellant refers to examples of gates of similar height in proximity, specifically the Council’s approval of gates of similar height at Village Farmhouse and their reference to those at [address], which are both listed buildings. Of these the latter has a front boundary which appears entirely hedged albeit with some elements of walling largely concealed within, such that the gates do not stand prominently there being no associated piers or pillars. The vehicle and pedestrian gates on the frontage to Village Farmhouse fit within a within a section of wall which is of similar height to its gates and under a tall hedge. The simple planar form of that wall (notwithstanding its greater height than elsewhere) contributes to the generally unifying effect of the stone walling along [site address] ..

A number of different gate types are found in [site address] , including 5-bar timber and metal pedestrian; my observations in that regard are that it is the general evenness of the enclosing walls’ form, the continuity, texture and weathered colour of the stone which are the predominant characteristics, piers or similar architectural elements absent, that define [site address] scene. Gates appear to bridge gaps in an otherwise continuous form as is the case at Village Farmhouse, and generally6 are visually subordinate to the walls in which they are located.

The works proposed to be retained at [site address] , however, include two stone piers which are double the height of the boundary wall to correspond to the height of gates. Unlike the un-mortared terminations and corners to walls found elsewhere, notwithstanding the use of reclaimed stone, the height, ‘built’ appearance and detail employed7 in these pillars is visually anomalous and detracts from the distinctive character and appearance of this part of the CCA, which is a designated heritage asset.

I therefore find a conflict with policy 58 of the [name] 2015 (WCS) which seeks to protect, conserve and where possible enhance, the historic environment. In that regard I have noted the general duty set out in Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 that such harm, albeit limited, should attract considerable importance and weight which, in this case, I consider is not outweighed by any public or other benefit.

Consequently, taking all matters raised into account, the appeal cannot succeed.