Appeal 6000942

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council’s notification letter referred to the appeal being made under section

However, this appeal is made as detailed above. Notwithstanding, as interested parties were given the appropriate opportunity to comment on the appeal, their interests have not been prejudiced and I proceed to determine the appeal.

The appeal relates to an application for listed building consent where the building lies within a conservation area. I have had special regard to sections 16(2) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) which require me to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses; and to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

Since the Council’s decision was issued, the North Norfolk Local Plan 2024-2040 Plan (LP) has been adopted, replacing the [name]. Listed building appeals are not subject to section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Consequently, they do not need to be determined in accordance with the development plan, although relevant provisions can nevertheless be material considerations. The Council has confirmed the current development plan policies.

The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve the [name] listed building [name] of Park Farmhouse or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses and whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Manningham and Wolterton Conservation Area.

[name] of Park Farmhouse 1 is a [name] listed building of which the appeal site forms part. The building is dated 1844, but may date from earlier. It is an E- shaped planned range of farm buildings, constructed from red brick and red pantiles. It has distinctive shaped and stepped gable ends and a prominent two storey section.

From the information before me and my observations at my site visit, I find the special interest and significance of the listed building to be mainly derived from its historic interest as a planned range of agricultural barns and its architectural interest from its fine detailing and the cohesiveness of its external appearance and materials.

The site lies within the Manningham and Wolterton Conservation Area (CA). Its character and appearance are mainly derived from its rural pattern of dispersed development and the role of large estates in land use and the pattern of development. The site contributes to this as a fine example of agricultural development and is likely associated with [name].

The works proposed are the installation of solar panels on the single-storey south-facing roof slope of [site address] . This is a long single storey side projection to the eastern-most dwelling in the listed building and sits adjacent to [address].

It is clear that effectively the entire extent of the single storey roof slope would be covered by the panels. They would represent a modern intervention to the listed building. The dark, smooth finish of the panels would clearly contrast with the red pantiles. However, this would be a distinct phase in the evolution of the listed building which would be readily discernible as such. It also would not alter the ability to appreciate the historic significance of the listed building as a whole.

The panels would be sited on a single storey element of the building. It is screened by the surrounding landscaping and would be particularly so during the spring and summer months. Even if that were not present, any views of the panels would be short-lived as one moved through the area. They would not appear unduly prominent or incongruous.

However, the plans before me are simplistic and do not accurately reflect the openings on the building, the detail of the shaped gable or show the brick banding pattern under the eaves. The evidence before me refers to the building’s roof being substantially repaired in 2014-2015 and that no historic roofing material of high significance will be affected. But there is no further detail about the previous works before me or explanation as to why it is known that the roofing materials are not historic. 1 [name]: 1373484 Date first listed: 12 July 1991

There is also a contradiction between the plans, which show the panels as standing 100mm clear of the pantiles, and the written evidence which states they would be no more than 200mm above the roof slope. There is no detail of how the panels would be attached to the roof such as would the panels be in a frame or would they be individually affixed. Consequently, there is not enough information before me for me to be able to assess the nature and extent of any effects to the fabric of the listed building, or the effect the proposal would have on the character or appearance of the CA.

Furthermore, there is no detail before me as to how the energy generated by the solar panels would be connected to the electricity supply within the building. I acknowledge the written evidence has a photograph of what appears to be a typical connection to a phase supply and which appear to be limited in their scale. However the written evidence also refers to the panels operating in conjunction with battery storage and electric vehicle charging infrastructure. While the air source heat pump is stated to be existing, this does not appear to be true of the battery storage and it is not clear if an electric vehicle charging point has been installed. It also refers to grid connection equipment being housed in secure structures within central positions in the building. There is no detail of any of these works before me. I acknowledge at my site visit I observed the fuse box of the property was in a modern cupboard, and that the rafters of the property were clearly modern. However, the evidence indicates that a considerable amount of further works could be necessary to effectively use the electricity generated by the solar panels.

It is imperative that proposals are accompanied by drawings and specifications of sufficient detail to illustrate and/or describe the proposed works in order to avoid any uncertainty over what is proposed and to allow a robust assessment of any consequent effects. The deficiencies in the plans and information cited above give rise to ambiguity. This is undesirable in general terms but especially given that the property is a [name] listed building of national importance. Consequently, I cannot be certain that they would preserve the listed building’s special interest, or preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA, and not harm the significance of these designated heritage assets.

I have considered whether this is a matter which could be addressed by condition for the submission of more detailed drawings. However, conditions must meet the tests set out in paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Conditions must be reasonable and should not prevent the permission or consent from being implemented. Given the uncertainty I have identified above about the necessary scale of any further works, I cannot be certain that such a condition would pass these tests.

I note the Council did not request any further detail be submitted or raise concern with respect to these issues. I am also aware of the requirement of the Framework to give significant weight to the need to support energy efficiency and low carbon heating improvements to existing buildings, and note the guidance by Historic England cited by the appellant. However, the Act imposes duties upon me as the decision maker and the Framework requires that I give great weight to the conservation of these designated heritage assets. I have assessed the proposal on the basis of the limited evidence before me.

I conclude that it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal would preserve the [name] listed building [name] of Park Farmhouse, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses or that it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

I therefore cannot be certain that the proposal would meet the statutory presumptions set out in sections 16(2) and 72(1) of the Act. Nor can I be sure that it would not harm the significance of the listed building and so comply with the provisions within the Framework which seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment. Nor can I draw conclusions against the relevant policies of the

I have been referred to a decision taken by the Council elsewhere. However, that proposal did not involve a statutorily listed building, but locally listed buildings. These are not subject to s16(2) of the Act. Nor would decisions taken elsewhere alter my assessment of this proposal which is based on the special interest of this listed building.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.