Appeal 6002028

The appeal is dismissed.

As the proposal is in a conservation area, I have had special regard to section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act).

The Council’s refusal reason refers to the effect of the proposal on ‘[name]. This relates to the [name] registered Park and Garden known as ‘[name] (Ref 1000441) (the RPG), of which [name] (the Meadow) forms a part.

It is common ground that the appeal scheme complies with the requirements under paragraph BB.1. of Schedule 2, Part 4, Class BB of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO). [name].2. (b) requires an application to determine whether prior approval is required as to the siting of the moveable structure and the method by which it is to be installed. The Council has not identified concerns in respect of the method of installation. Under paragraph BB.3 (9) (b) the decision must be made having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), so far as relevant to the subject matter of the prior approval, as if the application were a planning application. The appellant’s evidence makes reference to another appeal decision in which the Framework was considered relevant insofar as it related to the subject matter of that appeal, and that is the approach taken here.

Accordingly, the main issues are the effect of the siting of the structure on the setting as it relates to the special interest of the nearby grade II listed buildings ([address] and [site address] ); whether the siting of the structure would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [name] (City and University) Conservation Area (the CA); the effect of the siting of the structure on the setting of the RPG and the scheduled monument ([name]); and its effect on the setting of the non-designated heritage assets (the warehouse and crane).

The grade II listed building known as ‘[address] ([name] only)’ (Ref

([address]) is described as an early 19th century building of three storeys, of ashlar stone with a hipped slate roof. The historic context of this building would have been as part of a working wharf on the [name], in addition to the former warehouse that now forms the [site address] public house. The current context in which it is experienced is associated with the leisure use of the public house, but a sense of its importance as a former industrial building is retained due to the architectural quality of the [address] and warehouse, their historic scale and their continued physical and visual connection with the river. The space between the raised form of [site address] and those buildings, together with its open frontage onto the river is also reminiscent of its former use as a working wharf and contributes to its significance.

Given the above, I find that the setting of the building, insofar as it relates to this appeal and its special interest, to be primarily associated with the terraced areas between the [address] and the river, providing a sense of connection with its open, riverside frontage and its historic industrial use.

The grade II listed bridge known as “ [site address] with [address]” (Ref:

( [site address] ), is said to date from 1485 and to have been rebuilt in

It comprises of rusticated stone with a main span of three arches and a subsidiary span to the south. It is located at a very early river crossing point used by the Saxons and bridged by the Normans in the late 11th century. It continues to be an important river crossing point today. A contemporary single storey toll house is situated on the opposite side of the road to the appeal site. I find that the setting of [site address] , insofar as it relates to this appeal and its special interest, to be primarily associated with views of the bridge from surrounding land, including the appeal site, from where the architectural and historic interest of the bridge as a centuries old river crossing point can be readily appreciated.

The CA encompasses the city centre and includes a significant concentration of high-quality buildings of a mix of uses, with its layout having been shaped by its historic street pattern and proximity to the [name]. Insofar as it relates to this appeal, I find the significance of the CA to be primarily associated with the historic relationship between its built form and the [name].

The proposed structure would comprise a 7 metre by 7 metre ‘cruck tent’ with a maximum height of 2.94 metres. It would have a timber frame with a canvas roof, with timber planters filled with ballast to hold the structure in place. It is proposed to be located on the lowest terrace, between the [site address] and the [name]. The footprint of the proposal would be confined to one side of that terrace. However, it would occupy a considerable proportion of that space and would appear much more substantial than the existing umbrellas that are positioned ad hoc on the terraces and are individually collapsable, thus appearing more transient. Consequently, although open-sided, its expanse of canopy would noticeably reduce the open character of that terrace, encroaching on the openness of views from the [address] down to the river. This would diminish the sense of connectivity between the [address] and the river, harming the special interest of the [address].

Similarly, the position of the proposal adjacent to [site address] would result in its canopy obscuring views of the historic fabric of the bridge from the pub terraces. The presence of the proposed structure would thus detract from the ability to appreciate the historic fabric of the bridge. This would harm to the special interest of [site address] .

In addition, the enclosure of part of the terrace as proposed would add clutter, detracting from the ability to appreciate the historic function of the appeal site as a wharf. Given the contribution that the site’s industrial heritage makes to the significance of the CA, I find that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the CA to a limited extent. Given the above, I find that the proposal would fail to preserve the setting as it relates to the special interest of the listed buildings and would fail to preserve the significance of the CA.

The RPG incorporates the grounds of the college of [name], including [name] and [address]. The Meadow is described as largely pasture that extends up to the [name] and arm of the [name]. It is surrounded by a circular walk, lined with mature trees. From the walk there are riverside views as well as views over the Meadow and towards the Oxford skyline. The significance of the RPG insofar as it relates to this appeal is primarily derived from the sense of openness and spaciousness created by the Meadow and its riverside setting, and its historic association with [name].

The proposal would be outside the boundary of the RPG, separated from it by the substantial built form of the [site address] public house. In addition, the proposal would be positioned adjacent to the built form of the [site address] such that it would not appear particularly conspicuous from the pathway at the edge of the Meadow. Also, given the limited size and scale of the proposal, it would comprise a very small part of the wide ranging views from the Meadow. As such, it would not harm the significance of the RPG.

[name] (the Causeway) is a scheduled monument and therefore an asset of the highest significance. The Causeway is located to the west of the site, including [site address] and sections of [name] and [address]. Therefore, the appeal site does not form part of the scheduled monument. Moreover, the proposal would not require foundations, being a free-standing structure secured by ballast filled planters. Consequently, I find that it would not be harmful to the significance of the Causeway.

Paragraph 212 of the Framework advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of those assets and that any such harm should have a clear and convincing justification.

Given the scope of the works and its temporary nature being limited to a maximum of 120 days, I find the harm to the [address], [site address] and the CA to be at the lower end of less than substantial in this instance but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimal viable use.

The appellant is of the opinion that the proposal would be beneficial because it would increase the usability of the space in inclement weather, resulting in economic benefits for the pub. The evidence also highlights the challenging trading conditions for such businesses, particularly following the covid pandemic. The Framework encourages decisions that support community facilities including public houses and places significant weight on supporting economic growth. However, the space already accommodates seating and umbrellas for use by patrons of the pub when weather allows. Also, the proposal would be limited to a maximum of 120 days. Consequently, in the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary I find that the economic and social benefits would be small.

Reference is also made to the costs associated with maintaining the building. [name] am sympathetic to this, I am not persuaded that the proposal would make a meaningful contribution to the funding of such maintenance works and there is no mechanism before me to secure the use of funding for that purpose. It is also submitted that the proposal would increase the number of customers able to appreciate the heritage significance of the site. However, for the reasons given I have found that the proposal would be harmful to the ability to appreciate the heritage significance of these assets. I have also had regard to the Historic England (formerly English Heritage) guidance on temporary structures in historic places (2010) which recognises the contribution such structures can make, but also that they are not appropriate in every location and their impact can vary widely.

Consequently, whilst an absence of harm to the RPG and scheduled monument is a neutral consideration, I do not find that the public benefits are sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified to [address], [site address] and the CA in this instance. I also note that the continued viable use of the public house is not dependent on the proposal as the use is an ongoing one that would not cease in its absence.

Given the above and in the absence of public benefits that would outweigh the harm that would be caused, I conclude that, on balance, the proposal would fail to preserve the special historic interest of these [name] listed buildings and that the character or appearance of the CA would be neither conserved nor enhanced. Insofar as relevant, the proposal would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act, and paragraph 210(a) of the Framework.

The warehouse and the crane positioned on its lowest terrace are considered to be non-designated heritage assets. The significance of the warehouse insofar as it is relevant to this appeal lies in its scale and architectural quality and its association with the former industrial function of this area, adjacent to the river. The crane is also symbolic of the historic industrial use of the appeal site.

The proposed structure would be situated adjacent to the crane, thus creating a cramped appearance. This would reduce the ability to appreciate the form of the crane as a standalone feature. Also, as reasoned above, the enclosing effect of the proposed canopy would diminish the ability to appreciate the historic context of the warehouse and its relationship with the river. Accordingly, I find that the proposal would harm the significance of these non-designated heritage assets. Paragraph 216 of the Framework advises that a balanced judgement is required having regard to the scale of any harm to non-designated heritage assets and the asset’s significance. Given the temporary nature of the proposal and taking into account the significance of the warehouse and crane as non-designated assets, I find that the harm to these assets would be limited. It would nonetheless fail to satisfy the provisions within the Framework for proposals to conserve and enhance the historic environment.

Therefore, for the above reasons, prior approval is not given and the appeal is dismissed.