Appeal 6001368

The appeal is dismissed.

A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published for consultation during the course of this appeal. Having regard to its content and the nature of the disputed matters, I am satisfied that no prejudice would arise to either party by proceeding to issue this decision without seeking comments.

The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Aldwark Conservation Area (the CA), and its effect on the significance of the host building, a non-designated heritage asset.

The appeal property is a dwelling which has been converted from part of a traditional [postcode] farmstead constructed in limestone with a linear built form beneath an asymmetrical pitched blue slate roof. Although altered, its form, materials and proportions are nevertheless typical of local agricultural vernacular. Consequently, I find the appeal property has historic and architectural significance as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA).

The appeal property is in the Aldwark Conservation Area (the CA). The CA includes most of the small rural settlement of Aldwark which is said in the Conservation Area Appraisal (CAA) to be one of the oldest settled villages in the Peak District National Park. In accordance with Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

Policy DMC5 of the Development Management Policies (2019) (DMP) states that planning applications for development affecting a heritage asset, including its setting, must clearly demonstrate its significance including how any identified features of value will be conserved. It further states that supporting evidence must be proportionate to the significance of the asset. Whilst dealt with only briefly, the submitted ‘Design, Access and [name] nonetheless identifies that the barn is within the CA and describes its ‘heritage value’ as being derived from its general form and vernacular appearance.

From my assessment of the evidence and observations on site, the significance of the CA is derived from the simple, agricultural vernacular of the farmsteads and houses which are generally spaced around the ‘hummocky’ Green at the centre of the village. [name] observed some variety of materials, the buildings are typically built from rubble limestone or roughly course limestone, with natural blue slate roofs or Staffordshire plain clay roof tiles. There are views in all directions across the Green which gives a visual unity to the village, and the built form and use of traditional materials give the CA a cohesive character and distinctive sense of place.

The appeal property is located broadly centrally within the village, and on the eastern edge of the CA. Its principal (front) elevation faces south-west with its narrow gable end extending right up to the lane. The CAA does not identify any buildings as ‘positive contributors.’ However, given its prominent location, form and materiality, the appeal property makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA.

The guidance in the ‘[name] and Sustainable Building Supplementary Planning Document’ (2013) is that solar PV, so far as practicable, should be sited to minimise the effect on the external appearance of the building, and that only as a last resort should fixing solar panels on the front roof slope be considered.

In conflict with this SPD guidance, the proposed solar arrays would be positioned on the front roof slope of the appeal property. Whilst between two existing rooflights, the proposed arrays would comprise 13 separate panels which would form an almost continuous row across much of the roof slope. The panels and frames would be a matt black colour to avoid unnecessary glare, but they would have a modern, flat appearance which would starkly contrast with the textured natural materials of the host building. Moreover, they are designed to be an integral part of the roof fabric, with cabling hidden, so would replace much of the existing blue slate tiles on this side of the roof.

The scale and position of the solar arrays mean they would be widely visible from public vantage points, notably from close-by when approaching the village centre from the south-east, and from longer distances from the lane opposite on the southern side of the Green. In these views, despite being fitted flush to the roof and sited below the ridgeline, the proposed panels would appear a discordant, unduly prominent addition to the host building.

Whilst it may be a reversible intervention, in combination, the scale and modern appearance of the proposed arrays on such a prominent roof slope, would be harmful to the cohesive, distinctive vernacular and traditional materials which are characteristic of the CA. Moreover, the erosion of traditional materials would harm the significance of the building as a NDHA and the contribution it makes to the CA.

Despite the assertion of the appellant, the low drystone walls and hedgerows along the lane, and the mature tree in the corner of the neighbouring garden, provide very little screening of the roof slope, nor would they be effective in softening the visual presence of the arrays in public views.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect a NDHA, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.

The harm that I have identified would be at the lower end of less than substantial, but it is nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Under such circumstances, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

To achieve sustainable development, an objective of the Framework is to mitigate and adapt to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy. The appellant asserts that the installation of the solar arrays is a direct response to the climate emergency, and I acknowledge that the proposal would result in a public benefit, notably with regards generating clean, renewable energy, displacing grid electricity and supporting decentralised energy generation. This would accord with Policy CC1 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2011) (CS) in so far as it requires new development to take account of using low carbon and renewable energy. It would further align with paragraph 167 of the Framework which requires significant weight be given to the need to support energy efficiency and low carbon heating improvements to existing buildings, including through the installation of solar panels.

I attach moderate weight to these public benefits, despite the small scale of the proposal. However, I conclude that they do not outweigh the great weight to be given to the less than substantial harm that I have identified above. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [name]. In taking a balanced judgement, it would further result in harm to the significance of the appeal property, a NDHA.

Consequently, the proposal would conflict with the Framework and with CS policies GSP3 and CC2 and DMP policies DMC3, DMC5 and DMC8. Together, these require development to respect, conserve and enhance characteristics of the site and buildings, with particular attention paid to siting, scale and form, locally distinctive design details, and the nature and quality of materials.

Further, it would conflict with CS Policy L3 and DMP Policy DMC5 which, amongst other things, require development to conserve the significance of historic assets and in cases of less than substantial harm to its significance, weigh the harm against the public benefits of the proposal. The proposal would also conflict with CS Policy CC2 which encourages low carbon and renewable energy development provided they can be accommodated without adversely affecting heritage assets.

Finally, it would conflict with CS Policy GSP1 and the duty to seek to further the statutory purpose of conserving and enhancing the cultural heritage of the Peak District National Park.

Although reference is made in the evidence to the National Park Authority’s suggestion of an alternative ground-mounted solar array, this has had no bearing on the appeal, and I have considered only the proposal which is before me.

The appellant has also referred to appeal decisions in respect of the installation of PV panels elsewhere in the Peak District National Park in Tissington,1 Wormhill2 and Cressbrook3. I have very little evidence before me in respect of the characteristics or context of the respective sites or buildings, or the public benefits attributable to these proposals. However, I note from the decisions that these involved the siting of PV panels on the rear elevation of a building, on a modern garage or were ground mounted. Consequently, they are not directly comparable to the appeal proposal now before me which, in any event, I have considered on its individual merits.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.