Appeal 6000937

The appeal is dismissed and listed building consent is refused for installation of 12 photovoltaic solar panels on roof of existing kitchen extension.

As the appeal relates to a listed building consent, I have taken sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) into account.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the [name] listed Hollywater 1 and the features of special architectural or historic interest it possesses.

Hollywater is a mid to late 19th century bank barn of a linear form that sits perpendicular to the road. It is constructed of rubble with snecked coursing and brick dressings and is served by a hipped, slate roof. I understand that as part of its conversion to a dwelling, the building was also extended. The kitchen extension has been constructed in materials similar to that of the former barn, including its roof. However, it is lower in height and although the roof is of a similar pitch it drops below the eaves of the former barn. Moreover, the roof of this element is gabled rather than hipped. There is a further extension to the righthand side of the building which, when viewed from the road, provides the front door and a garage. While the porch roof continues the pitch and materials of the host building, the garage roof is much shallower.

Concerns have been raised as to the effect of these extensions on the listed building, and I note the appellant disputes whether the building should be listed. However, the building is still included on the [name] and its significance remains. This significance stems, at least in part, from the age of the building, the 1 [name]: [name] 25 metres south of [site address] Farmhouse (1258804) extent to which its historic appearance and function are still legible, and its context amongst the former farm and agricultural landscape.

I have been provided with only one simple scale drawing showing the arrangement and location of the proposed solar panels. No details of their fixing or any supporting framework have been provided. The annotated photographs show two different layouts, one of which does not align with that on the submitted drawing. However, from the submissions before me I understand that the panels will be flush mounted and finished in black. I cannot be certain from the details before me as to whether the panels would be finished in such a way as to prevent reflections and glare.

With the exception of the garage roof, the rooves serving the building are finished in slate. The slates, while grey, are not uniform in colour and would be much lighter than black solar panels. The proposed panels would consequently be a dark and uniform feature incongruous against the roof slope and prominently visible within public views. [name] note that the proposed panels would only be directly affixed to the roof of the modern extension, this still forms part of the listed building and is seen and read as part of it. Lacking certainty that the panels would not be reflect, there is a risk that reflections and glare would, especially on sunny days, increase the panels’ prominence and further distracting from the interest of the former barn.

Against this background, and given the scale of the development, I find that a moderate degree of less than substantial harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset would occur. Although less than substantial, considerable importance and weight should be given to any asset’s conservation. Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

The appellant has suggested that the proposal would improve the energy efficiency and independence of the dwelling while also reducing its carbon footprint. This, they submit, would provide long-term environmental benefits and support the Council’s climate change aims. I am content that these benefits would occur as a result of the proposal and that they would, by way of improving the local housing stock and contributing to combating climate change, be public benefits.

The Council suggested that solar panels could be sited within the grounds of the dwelling instead. Hollywater’s garden stretches away from the road, and a great portion forms a slope that runs parallel with the appeal building. While there were areas in the garden that could have the potential to accommodate solar panels all were close to mature trees. I am content from my visit that these trees would provide substantial shading to the panels throughout the day. It is therefore very unlikely that a viable siting would be possible here without the removal of these trees.

However, the proposal is only of a small scale, serving one property and I note that the appellant considers the panels would not meet their total energy needs. Consequently, I afford these benefits only modest weight which, in the circumstances of this appeal, do not outweigh the harm to the designated heritage asset identified above.

Given the above, the 12 photovoltaic solar panels proposed under these works would not preserve the special historic interest of Hollywater, a [name] listed building, and no public benefits outweigh this harm. The works therefore fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act, the Framework and the policies of the development plan, insofar as they are relevant.

The appellant has referred to appeal decision APP/X1165/E/10/2131478 which I understand refers to the installation of solar panels on a listed building. However, whilst other planning and appeal decisions are capable of being material considerations, all decisions turn on their own particular circumstances based on the facts and evidence before those decision-makers or Inspectors at the time. Therefore, I cannot make any meaningful comparisons to the appeal scheme before me, which I must consider on its own merits.

For the above reasons and having regard to all other matters raised I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.