Appeal 6002125

The appeal is allowed and listed building consent is granted for installation of a fish and eel pass within the spillway of [site address] at [site address] , [address], Dogmersfield, Hook, Hampshire [postcode] , in accordance with the terms of the application reference 25/00514/LBC, subject to the following conditions:

The works authorised by this consent shall commence not later than 3 years from the date of this consent.

Prior to the installation of the Larinier tiles and eel bristle boards, product details including material colour and manufacturer specifications, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Larinier tiles and eel bristle boards shall thereafter be installed in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the construction of the new brickwork hereby approved, sample panel(s) for all new facing brickwork, showing the proposed brick, mortar, bond and pointing for both the walls and channel, shall be displayed on site and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Construction of all new brickwork shall thereafter be undertaken in accordance with the approved sample panel(s).

Prior to the re-pointing and rendering of the face of existing masonry walls, product details and the ratio mix of the mortar, render and finishes, as well as a methodology statement for application of the render, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Such works shall thereafter be completed in accordance with the approved details.

As the proposal is in a conservation area and relates to a listed building I have had special regard to sections 16(2) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act).

The main issues are whether the proposal would preserve a [name] listed building known as “ [site address] ” (Ref: 1339833) (the LB), or any of the features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses and the extent to which it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Dogmersfield Conservation Area (the CA).

The LB dates from the 18th century and comprises a two storey mill building with an attic and a red tile roof. It is red brick with blue headers laid in various bonds including Monk and English garden wall bonds, with exposed timber framing and sections that are boarded. The mill wheel is in situ, albeit its buckets have been removed and timbers inserted in their place. The wheel pit is present but is said to only take water flows during high water levels. Adjacent to the wheel pit is historic brick walling that forms the spillway. Evidence of this having been previously extended upwards is apparent due to a change in the appearance of the bricks. The spillway channel is sloped and formed of masonry. Beyond this is another channel formed of concrete steps.

The historic context of the LB would have been as a working mill, with water flowing through the wheel pit, within a rural village setting. The current context in which it is experienced remains a rural village setting but with water now flowing through the two adjacent channels. The stepped channel has concrete walls indicating that it is a later addition, likely added when the mill closed in the 1920s.

Given the above, I find that the significance of the LB insofar as it relates to this appeal, to be primarily associated with its historic form and vernacular materials, and its close association with the river flowing alongside it. Remaining historic fabric of the spillway also contributes to the LB’s significance.

The CA encompasses the village of Dogmersfield with the [name] running through. It has a traditional rural village character with the [name] public house and green at its centre. It contains a number of listed buildings some of which date from the 17th and 18th centuries, as well as important views of open fields and countryside. Insofar as it relates to this appeal, its significance is primarily derived from its rural village character with a range of historic buildings and views to the countryside beyond.

As the proposed works would take place within the sloped channel spillway, the mill race would be retained as existing. Consequently, the LB would still be viewed alongside the wheel and adjacent to flowing water channels, maintaining its close association with the river. The proposal would involve the removal of the masonry inverts within the sloped channel to allow for the installation of precast channel units. Although below the water level, this comprises a loss of historic fabric. Revetments formed of rock rolls and coir matting are proposed to improve hydraulic conditions upstream of the weir crest. These would be modest features and thus would have a neutral effect on the significance of the LB. In addition, the pool bed below the mill is to be profiled with clean stone to provide a ramp to the fish pass. This alteration below water level would also have a neutral effect on the significance of the LB.

The Larinier fish pass would be contained within new masonry walling within the spillway. This walling would separate the fish pass from the brush eel pass. The proposed masonry walls would include some new walling on top of existing masonry walls. This would alter the profile of the spillway walls to a limited extent, and would thus appear inconsistent with its historic form. However, much of the new walling would be level with, or below the existing walling. This would minimise its prominence from its immediate locality. In addition, the use of imperial sized bricks laid in [name] bond with a lime based mortar would be consistent with the brick style and bonds used in parts of the LB. This would help to minimise the harm from this new feature. Also, whilst the scheme is designed to be submerged, there may be periods during low water flows where elements of the fish pass and eel bristles would be more visible. Visibility of the Larinier fish tiles and eel bristles would detract from the more naturalistic appearance of the existing spillway resulting in further harm at those times.

The Council raised concerns about the use of poured concrete on the basis that it would not be able to be removed without damaging the existing structure. As a result, the appellant submitted amended drawings that included reference to the use of limecrete, albeit some references to concrete slabs on those drawings remains. Nevertheless, it seems to me that the proposal has been sensitively designed such that concrete and limecrete are used only where necessary to make the proposal function effectively. Moreover, concrete is an integral part of the existing stepped spillway structure and over time has weathered which has softened its appearance. As there is no proposal for the future removal of the concrete or limecrete, the ease of doing this without damage to remaining historic fabric does not materially alter my reasoning. Nonetheless, for the reasons given above, elements of the proposal would fail to preserve the LB or any features of its special historic interest and would harm the asset’s significance.

Although some elements of the proposal would be visible from the CA, the LB would continue to make a positive contribution to the CA through the architectural interest of the building and its mill wheel, and historic association with the river. Despite the harm that would be caused to the listed building I do not find that the proposal would be detrimental to the character or appearance of the CA. This is because the extent to which the alterations to the spillway would be visible from the public domain would be limited and it would have limited prominence from the private domain. Paragraph 220 of the Framework states that proposals must be judged according to their effect on a CA as a whole and must therefore have a moderate degree of prominence. Given the above, I find that the proposal would not be detrimental to the CA and would thus preserve its significance.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (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 modest scope of the works, primarily contained within the spillway, I find the harm 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 submits that there would be public benefits arising from education and increased environmental awareness with opportunities for local involvement in the scheme. Such benefits may be possible but as there is no mechanism before me to secure them, I do not consider them to be public benefits here.

Supporting survey data in the vicinity of the appeal site is limited, and in some cases, very old. As such that it is difficult to quantify the scale of the benefit from supporting fish migration, ecosystem restoration, supporting the food chain and associated climate resilience. Nonetheless, there is no dispute between the main parties that the proposal would reduce the barrier for fish and eels to move upstream at this point in the [name]. This would increase their available habitat and increase resilience of the fish population to disturbances such as climate change. It would also help to improve the biodiversity of the river upstream of the LB.

In addition, whether or not the works form part of a statutory requirement under the Water Industry National Environment Programme, it is not a matter in dispute that the Environment Agency has identified a requirement for [name] to undertake work to support improvements to the Water Framework Directive status of the water body of which the appeal site is part. Consequently, it seems to me that the proposal would improve the ecological status of the [name] in support of WFD objective of restoring water bodies to achieve good ecological status. Furthermore, the proposal would support the protected eel species by providing greater freedom of movement within this part of the river from the point of installation and into the future. Given the importance of securing biodiversity enhancements and achieving greater resilience in ecological networks, the ecological benefits of this proposal thus amount to a public benefit that attracts considerable weight.

Consequently, I find that the public benefits of the proposal would outweigh the less than substantial harm in this instance. There is a clear and convincing justification for the harm that would be caused. This would satisfy the requirements of paragraph 213 of the Framework. Insofar as relevant it would also comply with Policy NBE8 of the Hart Local Plan (Strategy & Sites) 2032 (adopted April 2020). This generally seeks to protect the historic environment and ensure that harm to the significance of designated heritage assets meets the tests as set out in the Framework.

The Council suggested conditions in the event of the appeal being allowed and I have had regard to these, bearing in mind the relevant provisions of the Framework, Planning Practice Guidance and statute. In addition to the standard time-limit condition, a condition is necessary to require the submission of product details for the Larinier tiles and eel bristle boards. Although photographs of eel bristles form part of the appeal submission, these appear generic and vary in colour, therefore insufficient detail is before me to justify excluding that condition. Similarly, although the Larinier tile drawing has been provided this is marked as ‘example arrangement’ and the material specification is not included such that it lacks sufficient detail. The condition is necessary on that basis. Conditions requiring details of the new brickwork and re-pointing and rendering of existing masonry walls are necessary to ensure the proposal achieves an acceptable appearance having regard to retained historic fabric. The appellant suggested those conditions should be combined to reduce administrative burden, however the conditions are more precise as separate requirements. In any event, details for both conditions could be submitted concurrently and determined at the same time.

A condition requiring a programme of building recording and analysis is not considered necessary given the modest scope of the works which would be confined to the spillway. The Council’s proposed conditions requiring the appropriate safeguarding of the existing building, existing fixtures and fittings, and requiring notification of the Council of hidden historic features, are also not considered necessary on the same basis.

Given the above and considering all other matters raised, the appeal should be allowed.