Appeal 6001949

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal preserves the setting of the [name] listed Doddington Windmill1; and • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of the Doddington Conservation Area (the DCA).

Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) states that in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the Secretary of State shall 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.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) defines the setting of a heritage asset as the surroundings in which it is experienced. The extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance or may be neutral. The Framework advises that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset from development within its setting should require clear and convincing justification. 1 List entry No 1126577

[name] was a corn mill constructed in the 19th Century. It was formerly one of three mills within Doddington. The sails were removed from the Windmill in the mid-20th Century, and the cap was removed later, after it was storm damaged. As such, [name] is in a state of partial dereliction.

I find the significance of [name] to be primarily derived from its historic interest. Specifically, as one of three historic mills within the small village of Doddington. The number of mills within a small village, illustrates the importance of the surrounding fertile agricultural land to the growth of the village. [name] also holds some architectural interest as a 19th Century brick-built windmill. However, given its current state of partial dereliction, I consider that its architectural interest makes a very limited contribution to its significance.

The setting of [name] is formed by its edge of settlement location and the surrounding agricultural land, which provides an agrarian and rural setting. Map regression analysis, provided within the appellant’s Heritage Statement2 demonstrates that the Windmill was originally in an isolated position to the north of Doddington. However, over time the village has expanded to the north and east and now partially wraps around the Windmill; but the land immediately to the north and east of the Windmill remains largely undeveloped.

Although the appeal site is not agricultural land, it provides an important visual break between [name] and the residential development to the north and east. The largely undeveloped nature of the appeal site allows the Windmill to be appreciated as an edge of settlement development and demonstrates the important connection between the Windmill and the surrounding open land. Accordingly, the appeal site makes a positive contribution to the Windmill’s setting.

I note that the proposed site plan includes a moderate amount of open space close to [name]. This space would accommodate benches, a post and rail fence around an attenuation pond, signage, and a footpath. As such, it would have a formal appearance which would reflect its use as public open space. This managed appearance would not be akin to the agricultural land and scrubland which currently neighbours [name] to the north and east. Accordingly, it would have an urbanising effect on the land.

Furthermore, the proposal would lead to increased amounts of built development, residential activity, and domestic paraphernalia in proximity to [name]. This development would be much closer to the Windmill than the development to the north and east. In particular, Plot 1’s garden would only be a short distance from [name]. The reduction of the gap would result in the Windmill being further surrounded by residential development and erode its relationship with the largely undeveloped countryside. This would have a harmful, urbanising effect on the Windmill’s rural setting.

I acknowledge that the fence around [name] partially screens views to and from neighbouring land. Moreover, there would be limited views of the proposed development and [name] from the nearby public right of way, and the proposed development only includes single storey dwellings. Nonetheless, the relationship between the proposed development and the Windmill would be observed from nearby private land and properties. Also, the 2 Heritage Statement; Land off [address], Doddington; JB Heritage Consulting Limited; February 2025 Windmill is, and the proposed dwellings would be, visible above the fence. Therefore, the proposed development would be viewed alongside the Windmill.

The creation of public open space next to [name] would create new opportunities for the listed building to be appreciated in public views. However, the proposal as a whole would not better reveal the significance of the Windmill, as it would be harmful to the Windmill’s setting, and consequently its significance, for the reasons set out above. Furthermore, the creation of public open space within the site somewhat undermines the assertion that the proposal would not be harmful, in part due to limited visibility of the proposed development from public areas.

I note that the proposed development includes less dwellings than previously dismissed schemes, and that the design has evolved over time. Nonetheless, it would still be harmful for the reasons set out above. Likewise, the retention of a key view of [name] from [address] along the access track is a neutral factor and neither weighs in favour nor against the proposal.

On balance, I conclude that the proposal would not preserve the setting of the [name] listed [name]. The proposal would be contrary to policies LP16 and LP18 of the Fenland Local Plan, May 2014 (LP). These policies indicate that the Council will protect and conserve the historic environment throughout Fenland, amongst other matters. Moreover, the proposal would be contrary to the statutory duty set out in Section 66 of the Act.

Given the localised nature and modest scale of development, I consider the harm to amount to less than substantial harm. The harm would be in the middle of the spectrum of less than substantial harm, as it would have a significant effect on the setting of the [name] listed [name]. Regardless, the Framework is clear that great weight should be given to an asset’s conservation. Accordingly, this harm attracts considerable importance and weight.

Where a development leads to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the Framework requires the harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. I will return to this later in my decision.

The appeal site largely comprises of a parcel of scrubland on the edge of Doddington. It is neighboured on three sides by residential development. Therefore, it is rural in character but provides a transition between the village and the open countryside beyond.

The southern edge of the appeal site abuts the northern extent of the DCA. The significance of the DCA, in part, relates to Doddington being a historic fenland village. The DCA is focussed on the village’s historic core centred around the Church of [name], which is positioned on a raised area of clay. Following the drainage of the Fens in the 17th Century the village was surrounded by fertile agricultural land. As such, the local economy is based upon arable farming. The agricultural hinterland surrounding the settlement is a key feature of the DCA’s setting.

Although the appeal site is scrubland and does not form part of the surrounding agricultural land, it provides an important buffer between the DCA and development along [address]. I consider that the recent development along [address] has had a harmful urbanising effect on the setting of this part of the DCA. The proposal would result in the development along [address] connecting to the DCA. As a result, almost all of the north eastern edge of the DCA would be surrounded by residential development. Accordingly, there would be no visual connection between this part of the DCA and the wider agricultural hinterland.

The appellant asserts that the appeal site is a vestige of a once much closer relationship between the DCA and its fenland landscape. As above, I agree that most of this part of the DCA is not well connected to the wider fenland landscape. Nevertheless, this leads me to consider that it is important to retain one of the remaining breaks in development provided by the appeal site.

I note that due to the close-knit grain of development along the northern side of [address], there are limited public views of the appeal site from within the DCA. Moreover, there are also limited public views across the appeal site toward the DCA. Nonetheless, the relationship between the appeal site and the DCA would be appreciated from nearby private land and properties.

The design of the proposed dwellings respects the scale and form of dwellings within the DCA. As such, this aspect would be a benefit of the proposal.

Taking all of the above into account, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, including the setting of the DCA. The proposal would be contrary to LP policies LP16 and LP18. These policies indicate that proposals will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that it makes a positive contribution to the local character of the area, amongst other matters. The proposal would also be contrary to the Framework where it advises that the creation of high quality places is fundamental to what the planning process should achieve, and decisions should ensure that developments are sympathetic to local history.

Given the modest scale of the proposed development, I consider the harm to amount to a low level of less than substantial harm. As above, the Framework is clear that great weight should be given to an asset’s conservation and this harm attracts considerable importance and weight. Later in my decision I will return to balance this harm against the public benefits of the proposal, as required by the Framework.

The appeal site was allocated for residential development within an emerging local plan that was subsequently withdrawn by the Council. As that emerging plan was never adopted and is no longer being pursued by the Council, it holds no weight in the decision making process. Even if I were to consider that the Council accept the principle of residential development at the appeal site, it does not mean that the appeal proposal would be acceptable.

The Framework advises that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits. The proposal is harmful to the significance of two designated heritage assets: [name] and the DCA.

The development would make an effective use of land, through the creation of nine dwellings in an accessible location. These dwellings would be energy efficient, include water saving measures, and would comply with [name] of the building regulations, which concerns the accessibility of buildings. The proposal would provide net gains for biodiversity and include a new public open space. There would also be economic benefits associated with the construction period and through an increased local population. Whilst it is disputed by interested parties, the proposal could also provide a pedestrian connection to [address]. This would improve connectivity to the centre of the village and would shorten walking distances to services and facilities for existing residents of [address].

These are all public benefits. However, due to the scale of the proposed development, I ascribe moderate weight to these benefits. As a consequence, the public benefits do not outweigh the harm to the setting of the [name] listed [name] or the DCA.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan, when read as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.