Appeal 6001463

The appeal is dismissed.

The red line that defines the boundary of the appeal site initially included a larger area that comprises the total area of land under the ownership of the appellant. Early in the application process the red line boundary was significantly reduced as detailed on drawing number 24_160_03. The Council have confirmed that it accepted the amended plan and it was before it when the planning application was determined. I therefore consider that the Council or interested parties would not be prejudiced if I accepted the amended plan and proceed to determine the appeal based on the scheme as amended.

Accompanying the appeal is a [name] and [name] Report1, which does not make a substantive or fundamental change to the appeal proposal. The Council has had the opportunity to comment, and other parties have also had that same opportunity. Therefore, there would be no procedural unfairness in accepting this submission and I proceed on that basis.

The Council stated that the information within this document addressed their initial concerns regard the effect of the development on bats as a [name]. Based on the evidence before me I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s position. In light of this the second main issue will focus on the information provided in relation to [name] (BNG).

During the hearing an updated ecology statement, a copy of an appeal and a photograph were submitted. This information was submitted with the agreement of the main parties, at a public event. The submitted documents do not amend the proposed scheme, as such, I do not consider that any party would be prejudiced by my acceptance of this information. 1 Eco 360 [name] and [name], [site address] [site address] (May 2025)

The Council confirmed that it no longer considers that the proposed development would result in harm to the setting of the [name] listed building known as [address], as detailed within its first reason for refusal. I will cover the effect of the development on the setting of this listed building below.

The outbuilding ancillary to [site address] has already been demolished. The Council have confirmed that the outbuilding was poor quality and do not contest its loss.

The main issues are therefore: • The effect of the proposed development on the significance of ‘ [site address] ’, as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA), and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Blackfordby Conservation Area (CA); and • whether sufficient information has been submitted to assess the impact of the proposal on biodiversity in regard to BNG.

The proposed development is to entirely demolish [site address] and replace it with a detached dwellinghouse. Planning permission2 was refused for the demolition of the house and outbuilding and erection of a new house on 1 March 2022 and was later dismissed at appeal3 on 6 October 2023. The dwelling proposed previously was larger than the dwelling proposed as part of this appeal. Nonetheless, the previous appeal is a material consideration, albeit the focus of my assessment is based on the scheme before me.

The appeal site is part of a large grassed area on the edge of the village of Blackfordby. The wider site is enclosed by timber fencing and mature trees and the curtilage of the existing building is undefined. Most of the appeal site is within the Blackfordby Conservation Area (CA) which is centred on the historic core of the village within the north of the settlement. Most of the rest of the village is made up of more recent housing developments. The appeal site is located on the western edge of the historic core and is accessed off the highway, via a long access track. The position of [site address] is such that it appears as a standalone unit, beyond the rear gardens of the properties that front [site address] .

The significance of the CA as a whole is defined, in part, by its open, pastoral character and examples of historic architecture. Within the CA there are several unique, standalone buildings dating from between the 16th and 19th Century. Most of which are positioned in large plots and are listed or identified as unlisted buildings of architectural or historic merit within the Blackfordby Conservation Area Appraisal and Study (2001) (BCAA).

[site address] was constructed in a simple vernacular style. Based on the evidence before me the building has been unoccupied for several decades. At the time of my site visit windows and doors were missing leaving the building open to the elements. During the hearing [name], confirmed that the appellant purchased 2 22/00357/FUL 3 APP/G2435/W/22/3313534 the host property approximately 3 years ago, when the building was already in a derelict state. While there is no clear evidence that the building has deteriorated further in the last 3 years, [name] confirmed that the appellant has made no effort to preserve the building or make it weathertight and secure.

[site address] , nevertheless, is identified within the BCAA as an unlisted building of architectural or historic merit which is considered to make a positive contribution towards the streetscape of the area. The building is also listed within Policy ENV4 of the Blackfordby Neighbourhood Plan 2019-2031(BNP) as a NDHA.

Specific information regarding [site address] and its contribution to the CA is limited within the BCAA and the BNP. During the Hearing the Council confirmed that Historic England (HE) did not provide a consultation response in this instance due to procedural changes. However, they did provide a detailed response in 2022 in relation to the previous application at the site4, detailed above. Within its response HE highlighted that [site address] is an example of an agricultural building dating from the latter half of the 19th Century, when such buildings are rare due to a period of economic decline within agriculture; thus placing architectural and historical importance on the building. [name] provided advice in relation to a different scheme there is no convincing evidence before me to demonstrate that the importance of the original building has changed.

Still, within the evidence submitted in support of the development, and also during the hearing, the team acting on behalf of the appellant assert that [site address] does not warrant its status as a NDHA. During the Hearing [name], questioned the validity of the status of the building, based in part on the number of alterations and repairs to the building through the course of its lifetime, and changes to the defining criteria set by Historic England for NDHAs since the adoption of the BCAA in 2001.

During the Hearing the Council could not confirm when the status of [site address] as a NDHA had been subject to a review. Still, it is notable that the building was included within the BNP which was adopted in 2022. Further, HS provided their consultation response following the publication of Historic England Advice Note 7 ([name]) (2021) which is its most recent guidance on identifying and conserving local heritage. In addition, the historical and architectural importance of the original building was not disputed by the Inspector in their assessment of the previous appeal at the site5. Based on these factors, it is therefore appropriate to consider [site address] as an NDHA.

As an early example of simple agricultural architecture, set in a large area of open land, [site address] reflects the evolution of the village; which marks a gentle transition between the suburban settlement and the countryside beyond. The CA derives much of its character and appearance from the listed and unlisted buildings of architectural or historic merit and their plots which, along with the appeal property, make an important contribution to its historical and architectural significance. Effect on the heritage assets

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) recognises that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and should be conserved in a manner 4 22/00357/FUL 5 APP/G2435/W/22/3313534 appropriate to their significance so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the quality of life of existing and future generations.

The demolition of [site address] would lead to the total loss of all of its value as a building. While it is not the most well preserved example of rural vernacular architecture, and is of local rather than national importance, its complete destruction should be given significant negative weight.

The appellant has provided a Heritage Statement6 and Structural Report7 produced by [name] a professional with a background in architectural conservation and structural engineering. The reports highlight a number of issues to support the view that [site address] is structurally unsafe and not suitable for retention, these issues include significant cracking of exterior walls and subsidence, which is suggested to be the result of former mining activity; and, during the Hearing, a geological fault. In addition, the reports assert that the works required to repair the building, including the removal of cement render and later extensions would result in demolition, and damage or loss of a significant proportion of the historic fabric of the building. It is therefore the appellant’s position that the building is structurally unsafe due to ground instability and that the extent of works required to repair the building would result in the loss of its historic value; with the associated costs making it unviable.

However, the Council sought independent professional advice from [name] Ruddy8 to review the content of the submitted Structural report. [name] is a member of the Conservation Accreditation Register for Engineers (CARE) which is a register of professionals that are specifically skilled in the conservation of historic structures. Within his letter his view differs from that of [name] on a number of areas, which include the extent of demolition required, and possible reasons for the subsidence of the building. He also highlighted that the view that the costs associated with the repair and retention of the building was not supported by a detailed costs analysis. His letter also suggests a number of measures that could be applied to retain more of the building and restore it to a habitable condition.

[name] was unable to attend the Hearing where [name], a CARE accredited structural engineer acting on behalf of the Council confirmed that he agreed with [name] view. He stated that subsidence could be caused by a number of factors and that no conclusion should be reached in this regard without suitable evidence.

During the Hearing [name], confirmed that his findings were based on a visual inspection, drawing on his experience. Still, no substantive evidence has been provided to support his professional opinion; specifically in regard to the cause of subsidence or that the costs associated with the repair of the building. In light of the status of the building as a NDHA and its positive contribution to the significance of the [name] have not been provided with clear and convincing justification for its demolition.

I am aware that the appellant purchased the building relatively recently and are not entirely responsible for its current condition. Based on the evidence before me, including my site visit, they have not taken reasonable steps to ensure the building 6 Part 1 Heritage Statement, Issue 1 (2024) [name] 7 Part 2 [name], Issue 1 (2024) [name] 8 Letter from [name] dated 12 June 2025 is secure and wind and watertight. The ongoing neglect of the site significantly lessens the weight that should be given to the derelict state of the dwelling.

In order to address the previous Inspector’s concerns the height and size of the dwelling in the scheme before me was reduced and a garage has been removed. However, the proposed dwelling would still be significantly larger than [site address] in terms of both its footprint and overall height. Its position in relation to the layout of existing development is such that it would appear as a standalone unit on an elevated position. The existing building is visible from a public path that runs next to the boundary of the surrounding fields, and from neighbouring properties as well as localised views from the highway. The proposal would be noticeably taller and larger than both the farmhouse that it would replace and the prevailing scale of surrounding development. As such it would stand out in comparison, resulting in an overly prominent addition to the area.

The appellant highlights that the proposed dwelling would reflect neighbouring properties on [site address] . However, the proposed design would be relatively modern when compared to other buildings within the conservation area, with a design reminiscent of a dormer bungalow that has been extended to the rear. Dormers are not a common feature in the area and in order to allow for accommodation on the first floor the eves height and overall roof form is larger than that of surrounding dwellings, resulting in the building having a top heavy appearance. Further, the side elevations are extensive and lack articulation which, given the buildings position in an open landscape, do not relate well to its surroundings. Design elements such as the ground floor bay window and chimneys give a nod to a traditional influence, however they are poorly executed when considered in relation to the overall design and form of the building which is more typical of a suburban setting.

It is acknowledged that the proposed scheme would reflect the established building density within the CA which is characterised by unique and characterful buildings positioned within generous plots. Notwithstanding this, the absence of an overarching design style does not warrant a dwelling of the quality proposed which does not reflect the rural and historical character within the CA. While the appeal site is on the edge of the conservation area the magnitude of the resulting harm means that the proposal would detract from the area as a whole.

The demolition of [site address] would have a significant negative effect on the significance of this NDHA. In turn, this would have a consequential and harmful impact on the conservation area. Furthermore, the design, form and excessive scale and bulk of the proposed dwelling would detract from its positive qualities.

In conclusion I find that the demolition of [site address] , as a NDHA, is not justified and the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the CA. Therefore, it would conflict with s72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Policies S3, D1 and HE1 of the North West Leicestershire Local Plan 2021 (LLP), and Policies G2 and ENV4 of the BNP. When read together, these policies seek to ensure high quality design in development and to preserve, and where appropriate, enhance Leicestershire’s rich and diverse heritage assets and their settings, which includes conservation areas and identified NDHAs. The scheme would also conflict with the Framework insofar as it relates to achieving well-designed places and conserving and enhancing the historic environment.

In the words of the Framework, the development would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets. However, the totality of that harm would be towards the upper end of the spectrum. This is a matter that should be given considerable importance and weight.

Paragraph 215 of the Framework establishes that where the development proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this should be weighed against the public benefits. Paragraph 216 indicates that a balanced judgement is required for applications that directly affect NDHAs.

In reference to NDHAs Policy ENV4 of the BNP states that ‘there is a presumption against the loss or harm to the heritage asset unless it can be demonstrated that the public benefit of the development proposal significantly outweighs the harm caused’. While this sets a higher bar than the Framework there is no reason before me to demonstrate that the local community are prohibited from taking this approach.

The proposed development would provide a habitable dwelling in a sustainable location. This is consistent with the policies in the Framework that seek to deliver a sufficient supply of homes and make an effective use of land. There would also be associated economic and social benefits arising from the construction period; as well as a biodiversity improvement.

Indeed, the regeneration of this site would end a lengthy period of dereliction and the adverse effect that this empty building has on the appearance of the area. It would also remove a source of anti-social behaviour.

On the other hand, the Framework confirms that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets. Furthermore, it also seeks to achieve well-designed places. Given the scale of the scheme the public benefits of the redevelopment of the site are modest; particularly when countered by the provisions of the Framework relating to design and heritage assets.

Development must achieve a 10% BNG per Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act), as inserted by Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 2021, unless it meets an exception as set out in the Act9.

It is common ground that the development would be required to provide the statutory BNG. Therefore, if the appeal was otherwise successful, it would be subject to the statutory pre-commencement biodiversity gain condition (‘the condition’). Guidance contained within the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that consideration may be required as to whether ‘the condition’ is capable of being successfully discharged. 9 Schedule 7A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)

Schedule 7A, Part 1, 2(1) of the Act advises that the biodiversity gain objective is met in relation to development for which planning permission is granted if the biodiversity value attributable to the development exceeds the pre-development biodiversity value of the onsite habitat by at least the relevant percentage.

A Preliminary Ecological Appraisal was submitted in support of the appeal10. However, the survey area reflects the initial red line boundary of the site which, as detailed above, includes a much larger area. The red line boundary for the appeal site is now a great deal smaller. In light of this, I am not certain that the findings of the appraisal are an accurate representation of the actual appeal site.

The Council’s concerns relate to the requirement for development to demonstrate a BNG after the completion of the development and refers to an inadequacy of information as to the pre-development biodiversity value and suggests that the biodiversity of the site has been degraded. The Council Ecologist states that [name] indicates that the site encompassed grassland and wooded areas until 2022. Still, I have nothing before me to support or refute that assertion. It is also unclear whether this view is based on the survey area or the red line boundary of the appeal site.

Based on the evidence before me, in the event that BNG cannot be achieved on the site, the land in the appellant’s ownership, as shown in the blue edged area on the site plan, could be utilised for off-site [name]. A legal agreement would be needed for off-site gains that are on the developer’s own land and for significant on-site gains. A completed conservation covenant or S106 legal agreement should be secured through the discharge of the BGP condition and not before.

Therefore, I find the development is capable of meeting the mandatory requirements for BNG and a BGP would address the requirements of Policy En1 of the LLP and Policy ENV6 of the BNP which require development to conserve, restore or enhance the biodiversity in the district and safeguard local habitats.

I am aware that the site is proximate to the [name] listed building ‘[address]’. Mindful of the statutory duty set out in s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, I have special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting. Historic architecture and the verdant surroundings of [address], of which the appeal site forms part, positively contribute to its significance. Nevertheless, given the location and extent of the development as well as intervening mature landscaping, I consider that it would preserve the setting of this listed building and the contribution it makes to its significance. I note the Council no longer has concerns in this regard either.

My attention has been drawn to an example of an appeal11 where the Inspector took the position that due to a lack of clarity regarding baseline conditions, they were not confident that the standard biodiversity gain condition could be discharged. Full details of this decision were not provided. Therefore, I cannot be certain that there was an area of land under the ownership of the appellant where off-site BNG provision could be reasonably achieved. As such, I am not certain that the circumstances in the example provided reflect the scheme before me. 10 Eco 360 [name] and [name], [site address] [site address] (May 2025) 11 APP/M5450/W/25/3374164

The appellant has indicated that if [site address] was brought back in to use then it would be unable to comply with current building regulations. This is a matter assessed under separate legislation. Still, as detailed above, there is insufficient evidence before me to demonstrate that, upon restoration, [site address] would not provide future occupants with suitable living conditions.

The proposal would bring a habitable dwelling to the site which would make a positive, albeit minimal, contribution to the Council’s housing supply. There would also be limited economic benefits from construction as well as potential biodiversity improvements.

Nevertheless, although the concerns raised in relation to BNG could be surmounted, I found that the proposal would result in permanent harm to the character and appearance of the CA and would result in a significant negative effect on the significance of [site address] as a NDHA.

Consequently, the proposal would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no material considerations that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.