Appeal 6000852

The appeals are dismissed.

The Old Church1 is a grade II listed building2 that is in use as a dwellinghouse. It lies within the settings of two grade II listed monuments3, forms part of the setting of [site address] medieval settlement Scheduled Monument (SM) and is within the [name] & West Wiltshire Downs National Landscape4 (NL).

The main issue in both appeals is whether the proposal would preserve the features of special architectural or historic interest of [site address] , preserve the settings of the two listed chest tombs within the grounds of [site address] and the likely impact upon the setting / heritage interest (significance) of the SM. 1 Formerly known as the Church of the Assumption of the [name] and closed as a church in the 1980s. 2 The provisions of sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) are engaged. 3 Townsend Monument, about 4 metres south of the former chancel and an unidentified monument about 1 metre north of the former chancel. 4 The provisions of section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended) are engaged. Appeal Decisions 6000852 and 6000951

The significance of [site address] , which dates to the 15th century and was rebuilt in the mid-19th century5 in the [name] style, is primarily derived from its special architectural and historic qualities. These include its plan form with former nave, chancel and entrance, dressed limestone walls, chamfered doorway, ashlar bellcote, Welsh slate roof6, pointed windows, as well as its historical associations with religious worship and notable former parishioners in this part of Wiltshire. Notwithstanding the building’s re-use for residential purposes and works of adaptation, including rooflights, entrance porch and conservatory, it remains legible as a church and a high quality landmark building within the countryside.

The significance of the two listed chest tombs within the grounds of [site address] is also primarily derived from their architectural and historic qualities. These include their limestone panels7 and historical associations with some former notable parishioners8. The former church and its grounds, which now has something of a mixed domestic / ecclesiastical character, remains part of the settings to these listed chest tombs. These assist in affording an appreciation and understanding of past ideas, styles / tastes about commemoration and links to some former parishioners.

The SM lies to the south and south west of [site address] and is divided by the B3095. Its significance is primarily derived from its historic interest as an abandoned medieval rural settlement, with earthworks and below ground archaeological remains. This designated heritage asset has an extensive setting which includes the appeal site. Over time, there have been numerous changes within this setting. This includes the rebuilding of [site address] in the mid-19th century and some 20th century dwellings. The surrounding agricultural land assists in affording an appreciation and understanding of this medieval settlement.

The proposed solar array / panels would be spread across the south facing roof slopes of [site address] . Six black coloured panels9 would be interspersed with the three rooflights on the larger south facing roof slope, with the remainder grouped together and adjacent to the eastern most rooflight. These would be attached to the roof via roof hooks with mounting rails. There would be no disturbance to any historically important roof timbers. Cable runs would follow existing cables thereby avoiding any further intervention into the roof of the building. The works would also be reversible, with the ability to return the roof to its current condition at the end of the ‘lifespan’ of the panels / array. The proposed development / works would not harm any important historic building fabric.

However, notwithstanding the dark colour of the proposed panels / array, the proposed development / works would be undertaken on prominent roof slopes10 and would be a conspicuous addition to this listed building. The man-made / engineered appearance of the proposed panels / array would contrast awkwardly with the attractive natural qualities of the Welsh slates and would appear as a discordant element on the south facing roof slopes. The utilitarian form and 5 To the design of Chapman & Sons. 6 I understand that the roof structure was replaced when the building was adapted for residential use. 7 The chest tomb to the south of the former chancel has recessed moulded panels and pilasters. 8 The chest tomb to the south of the former chancel relates to [name] who died in 1712. 9 Arranged as 2 x 2 panels and 2 x 1 panels. 10 [name] saw during my visit, this listed building is a pronounced feature in views from the public realm to the south. Even if it was inconspicuous, the absence of public views of a listed building would be insufficient reason to permit harm to its heritage interest. Appeal Decisions 6000852 and 6000951 appearance of the panels / array would be at odds with the pleasing traditional architecture of a building that has been identified as of special interest. This harm to the building’s special architectural qualities would be compounded by the somewhat haphazard placing of a number of the panels around the rooflights. This would create a ‘confused’ / cluttered appearance to the south facing roof slopes, with many slates ‘lost’ amongst the extent of solar panels and rooflights.

In the context of the National Planning Policy Framework, the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of [site address] . If there is a sliding scale within this category of harm, the proposed development / works would be at the mid-point. However, this does not equate to a less than substantial planning objection. Great weight should be given to conserving the significance of listed buildings. The harm that I have identified above to the special architectural interest of this building weighs heavily against an approval.

I am required to weigh any harm with any public benefits. In this regard, the proposal would provide energy from a renewable resource, thereby helping to tackle climate change, as well as adding to the security of supply. The money saved / generated from installing the solar panels would also help to pay towards the upkeep of this listed building. These public benefits carry a large amount of weight in the heritage balance. Nevertheless, in this instance, matters are not so finely balanced as to outweigh the harm that I have identified above.

Whilst it does not weigh against an approval, as noted by the LPA’s conservation officer, there is nothing to indicate that alternative options for renewable energy generation, such as a ground mounted array, could not be achieved without harming the special interest of [site address] .

The proposed development / works would not impact upon the setting of the listed tomb chest on the northern side of the former chancel and would not detract from the significance of the listed tomb chest on the southern side of the former chancel. The proposal would also not have any perceptible effect upon the ability to appreciate or understand the significance of the adjacent SM. However, neither this, nor the existence of some solar panels on a neighbouring bungalow, outweighs the harm that I have found above to the significance of [site address] .

I conclude on the main issue that the proposal would fail to preserve the features of special architectural interest of [site address] . In so doing, it would conflict with the objectives of policy 58 of the [name].

The proposed development would not detract from the natural beauty or scenic attributes of the NL. There is also nothing to indicate that it would harm the special qualities of the NL. The proposal would accord with established national and local planning policies aimed at protecting nationally important landscapes.

My findings in respect of the NL above do not outweigh the harm that I have identified in respect of the main issue. Having regard to all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that these appeals should not succeed.