Appeal 6001271

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed and listed building consent is refused for 13 No solar panels to rear roof.

As the appeals relate to works to a listed building, I have taken account of Sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve [name]’s1 and [address] Croft Cottage2, both [name] listed buildings, and the Sherborne Conservation Area (the SCA) along with any special architectural or historic interest they possess.

[name] is a listed building comprised of two dwellings; Melrose, at No 43 [site address] and Dodill’s, at No [site address] . The appeal site covers the latter part of this 1 List entry number: 1324349 2 List entry number: 1304773 listed building. The building stems from the 17th century with later additions and alterations. It is a two-storey coursed rubble fronted building part of a longer terrace. The main roof runs parallel to the road and is finished in clay tiles. There are two dormers and a rooflight to the front, and rooflights to the rear. The rear of the building is more informal with a mixture of materials and two-outriggers. [name] [site address] there is a secondary roof, also finished in clay tiles, over the single storey out rigger. In part this building’s significance stems from its age, simplicity in detailing and materials, and its small domestic scale.

Adjacent to the appeal site, [address] [address] covers Nos 47 and 49 [site address] . The appeal site sits within this building’s setting. This building is later, 18th to 19th century, and although also two-storeys, is shorter in height than the appeal building. It is nevertheless also built in coursed rubble and presents a very simple appearance to the street. Its roof is finished with pantiles. This building’s interest arises in part from its simplicity and use of materials, as well as the legibility of its age and relationship to the wider street scene.

The appeal site is located within the SCA which covers a large area of the historic core of Sherbourne. Sherbourne demonstrates a significant history within a now predominantly mediaeval townscape that has been added to and altered. It contains a number of examples of listed buildings from across its history. The SCA covers both the commercial core of the settlement, as well as the dense residential surroundings. I find the significance of this area relates to the legibility of its age and historic layout, as well as the heritage assets it contains.

The proposal would introduce seven portrait solar panels on the upper section of the main rear roof slope and two landscape panels on the lower, shallower, section of this slope. A further four panels would be installed on the side facing roof of the single-storey outrigger. Other than their layout and the proposed method by which they would be attached to the rooves, very limited details have been provided of the solar panels. In particular, no details have been provided as to the finish of the panels, the colour of any framework, or the extent to which they would project off of the face of the roof.

With regard to the hook system attaching the panels, this would go under the tiles and be affixed to the roof timbers behind. As only the attachment of the system to the timbers is likely to affect the building’s materials, it is unlikely to result in any unacceptable damage to the dwelling. Although the set up would be removable, it does not mean that it would necessarily be removed as permission would be granted for a permanent installation. As such, I must consider any identified impact as being permanent.

While the panels would be on the rear of the building, both the main roof, and to a lesser degree the outrigger roof, are visible from a nearby carpark and green space. Although, when in leaf, intervening trees may go some way to soften the appearance of the proposal, this vegetation would not be sufficient to screen the proposal from public views. Nevertheless, irrespective of this visibility, I must also consider the proposal’s effect on the appearance of the listed building itself.

The proposed arrangement of panels is tidy and balanced across the rooves leaving a good amount of roof slope uncovered for the historic roofing material to be appreciated. However, and without details to confirm otherwise, solar photo-voltaic panels are typically black and somewhat reflective. Against the clay tile roof the panels would be a prominent and visually incongruous feature which would, irrespective of their arrangement, be harmful to the appreciation of the roof and wider listed building. Further harm could also occur depending on the elevation from the roof slope and the nature of any framework holding the panels.

By way of introducing a large and incongruous feature on the roof of the listed building, the proposal would compete for attention in views. Notably the panels would be visible within the SCA and in the setting of [address] [address] where again the proposal would be incongruous. As such the proposal would erode the contribution the host building makes to the significance of these heritage assets and would also harm their significance. This harm would be more limited but would nevertheless occur.

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

The proposal would provide renewable energy which would reduce the host dwelling’s reliance upon less sustainable energy sources, enhancing the environmental performance of the dwelling. I note that this is supported by both local and national policies, including Framework Paragraph 164(b). Such an improvement would also be a public benefit. However, I have been provided with only limited information as to the level of power generation and the extent to which the host dwelling’s reliance on other energy sources would be reduced. Given this, and the scale of the proposal, I find the scheme to only provide a modest public benefit. In the circumstances of this case, this does not outweigh the harm to the above noted designated heritage assets. The proposal would also therefore fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act.

The proposal would result in harm to the significance of the [name] listed building, and no public benefits have been demonstrated that outweigh this harm. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policies ENV4 of the [name], Weymouth and Portland Local Plan, which amongst other things, requires proposals to conserve the historic environment with consideration of their significance and the proposal’s potential impacts. The proposal would also conflict with Chapter 16 of the Framework, including Paragraphs 202, 208 and 215 which identify heritage assets as an irreplaceable resource whose significance should be accounted for and conserved.

My attention has been drawn to two decisions relating to works to listed buildings and I note the comparisons made. I have not been provided with the full details and facts of these cases. Whilst other planning 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 at the time. Particularly in this case, I do not know what documents were available to the Council during the application for 5 Hound Street3 and whether they were 3 Council Reference: P/FUL/2024/03623 comparable to those before me. Moreover, the example at Harper House4 is for works very different to that before me. Therefore, I cannot make any meaningful comparisons to the appeal scheme before me, which I must consider on its own merits.

There are no material considerations that indicate the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that appeals A and B should be dismissed.