Appeal 6002366

Both appeals are dismissed.

There are two appeals on this site. They relate to the planning application and listed building consent application for the same scheme. To avoid duplication, I have dealt with them together, except where otherwise indicated.

The evidence indicates that the development/works have been undertaken. I saw on site that they appeared to correspond with the submitted plans but for the avoidance of doubt, my decision is primarily based on the submitted plans and evidence. I have removed the word ‘retrospective’ in the description of development/works in the banner heading above as this is not an act of development.

In relation to the listed building consent appeal, I have based the description of the works on that stated in the Design and [name], as indicated in the application form. I have a statutory duty under sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

In Appeal A, the appellant has provided an acoustic report (LF Acoustics Ltd) with the appeal to address the first reason for refusal (living conditions). Whilst the procedural guide to planning appeals states that documents should not include Appeal Decision 6002363, 6002366 any new evidence or technical data not forming part of the original application, the Council has commented on the acoustic report. The Council explains that it makes comparable studies between the lawful use of the site and the activities for which permission is now sought. Further, that the report concludes that a B8 use would generate low levels of noise indicating a low potential for adverse impact at the neighbouring properties. The Council is therefore satisfied that the additional evidence addresses its concerns in relation to this reason for refusal. Having reviewed the evidence, I have no reason to disagree and will consider this matter no further in this decision.

In Appeal A, the appellant has submitted further information in relation to the second reason for refusal (Habitats Regulations). This includes a [name] ([name]), to supplement the existing Habitats Regulation Assessment (HRA), relating to the development’s impact on the [name]. The Council considers that this information should have been submitted during the application process and there was insufficient time to re-consult its HRA specialists and Natural England. Given that the responsibility for the Appropriate Assessment would now fall on me as the competent authority, I address this matter in my decision.

I have taken account of a recent appeal decision1 granting retrospective permission for a timber fence separating the farmhouse from the appeal site.

The main issue is the effect of the development/works on the significance of designated heritage assets ([name]).

The wider site of [site address] comprises a [name] listed farmhouse along with several former agricultural buildings to the west which are accessed from [site address] . The listing for the farmhouse ([name], Ref.1111112) states, amongst other things, that the 17th century house, with earlier fabric, is timber framed and plastered, with a red, plain tiled roof. It also describes its form, the arrangement of openings and its architectural features. For the purpose of these appeals, the building’s significance mainly derives from its age, historic fabric, function and architectural features, and it is a good example of a vernacular farmhouse. I saw that the main elevation of the building, including a gabled porch and large sash windows, faced west towards the farm buildings.

Historic mapping in the appellant’s Heritage Statement (Pegasus Group December

(HS) shows the arrangement of the farm buildings to the west of the farmhouse. From the evidence submitted and from what I saw on site, many of these buildings have been replaced with more modern portal buildings. However, both parties identify that Barn 1, near to the farmhouse, is historic and is considered a curtilage-listed building. Additionally, the Council’s decision notices identify Barn 4 as being curtilage listed in the reasons for refusal. On reading the Council’s Conservation Officer consultation, the concern appears to relate to the demolition of a likely curtilage listed building to the south of Barn 4. 1 AP/J1535/W/25/3372642 Appeal Decision 6002363, 6002366

Although the evidence indicates that the farmhouse and farm buildings to the west (the appeal site) are no longer functionally connected, the presence of the mainly modern farm building group still helps reinforce the historic function of the farmstead. As a whole, they are part of the environment in which the listed building is experienced and appreciated and therefore contribute to its significance. Barn 1, sited close to the farmhouse, makes a greater contribution to that significance due to its age and agricultural appearance (prior to the unauthorised works). I did not see any evidence of the historic building to the south of Barn 4 but the documents before me provide an indication of where it stood and other limited details.

The fence which now benefits from planning permission running between the appeal site and the farmhouse has caused some severance to the visual relationship between the farmhouse and the buildings on the appeal site. Nevertheless, I saw that there was still a discernible visual relationship between the farmhouse and the appeal buildings such that they maintain the character of a farmstead. Despite the presence of the fence, I found that Barn 1 (prior to the works subject to this appeal), lying at right angles to the main elevation of the farmhouse, still made an important contribution to its agricultural setting, a matter acknowledged in the HS.

Establishing what Barn 1 looked like before the unauthorised works, dating from 2022-present, is difficult as the evidence before me is limited and some alterations may have been long-standing. Barn 1 is a vernacular brick outbuilding with some surviving timber framework and the presence of timber posts and braces to the front elevation suggest that it was once open-fronted and divided into bays for the storage of farm equipment. Photos of the building in several of the appeal documents show a traditionally constructed clay tile roof with timber fascia.

Both parties reference unauthorised works, including the replacement of the clay tiled roof with a metal pantile-effect roof sheeting, the installation of UPVC windows, a metal door and metal internal panelling to walls and ceilings. Whilst the only dated evidence of recent change is in relation to the roof, it appeared to me on site that the upvc windows, doors, rainwater goods and internal metal cladding were recent additions. The strikingly different appearance of the roof, with its unusually uniform finish, slim sheeting and metal edging looked distinctly modern and different to the previous clay tiled roof. This could be seen from the roadside and closely viewed in conjunction with the frontage of the farmhouse. Together with the other identified changes, there has been a loss of historic fabric, and the installation of inappropriate, non-traditional building materials and features has harmed the building’s significance and the agricultural setting of the farmhouse.

In relation to the building south of Barn 4, the Council’s Officer Report includes a photograph identifying this as a further brick and tile building. I saw no evidence of this building during my site visit, and it does not appear to have been mentioned in the appellant’s documentation despite reference to it in the reasons for refusal. Whilst the Council has not expanded further on the significance of this building, given my statutory duty, it is a matter which needs to be addressed given its potential to have been a curtilage-listed building and therefore for the demolition to have affected the heritage significance of the site. In the absence of clarification, I must err on the side of caution and conclude that further heritage harm has occurred. Appeal Decision 6002363, 6002366

I therefore conclude that the development/works have had a harmful effect on the significance of the designated heritage assets. Therefore, the expectations of the Act are not met. Paragraph 212 of the Framework advises that when considering the impact of a proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. It goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the asset, or from development within its setting, and any such harm should have a clear and convincing justification. I find the harm to be a low level of less than substantial harm in this instance. This commands considerable importance and weight and is not to be treated as a less than substantial objection. The Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the development/works, including, where appropriate, securing the assets optimal viable use.

The development/works forms part of a wider re-use of the appeal site and would no doubt secure a long-term use for Barn1 and it may be that this is its optimal viable use. There would also be wider economic benefits derived from the use of the other farm buildings which were suggested to be redundant. However, it has not been demonstrated that these public benefits could not be achieved through an alternative scheme, thereby avoiding the harm identified to the heritage assets. Overall, these benefits carry limited weight.

The appellant suggests improvements and/or remediation to reduce the heritage harm and bring Barn 1 closer to its likely original appearance. This would include removing the upvc windows and infilling the openings with weatherboard, installing timber doors, reinstating the clay peg tiled roof and timber fascia, and removing internal cladding (drawing 1-1-003). Whilst these works would help to restore the historic agricultural character of the building to a degree, much of the detail appears speculative, and I am not certain that they would faithfully reinstate the building’s appearance prior to the unauthorised works. These matters, and a greater level of detail regarding the works, should be properly considered as a part of future applications. These should also address the loss of the former building to the south of Barn 4. The appellant criticizes the Council for not sharing its photographs, despite requests. These would be beneficial in resolving this matter but the onus for providing this information must fall on the appellant, especially given the relatively recent date of the works.

Given the above, I conclude that the public benefits of limited weight are insufficient to outweigh the great weight to be given to the harm to the designated heritage assets. As such, the scheme does not comply with the Framework. In addition, there is no clear and convincing justification for the harm to the significance of the heritage assets. The scheme, therefore, conflicts with Policy DM7 of the Epping Forest District Local Plan (2023) which seeks to safeguard and enhance the historic environment.

The development has the potential to affect the Epping Forest Special Area of Conservation (EFSAC), which is a European site as defined in the Habitats Regulations. The EFSAC is designated for the purpose of protecting its qualifying features, which include wet and dry heaths, beech trees, and its population of stag beetles. As an internationally important site it is afforded the highest level of Appeal Decision 6002363, 6002366 protection due to habitats and species that are vulnerable or rare within an international context. The conservation objectives are to ensure that the integrity of the site is maintained and restored, and that the site contributes to achieving the favourable conservation status of its qualifying features.

The Council considers that the development has a potential effect on the EFSAC and requires a HRA to quantify any potential adverse effect. Related to this, the Council has adopted an Air Pollution Mitigation Strategy considering that development may adversely affect the EFSAC because of atmospheric pollution arising primarily from vehicle emissions. In this case, the Council considers that the development could potentially result in a net increase in average annual daily traffic on roads through the EFSAC and, therefore, the additional atmospheric pollution would be likely to have significant effects on the integrity of the EFSAC both alone and in-combination with other plans and projects.

The appellant agrees that a HRA is required and has submitted the additional [name], referred to above, to assist with this assessment. However, notwithstanding this additional information, and being conscious of the requirement to undertake a HRA in accordance with my duty under the Regulations, there is no need for me to take this matter forward to an assessment because the scheme is unacceptable for other reasons.

The Council has concluded that the development would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and in this regard complies with its development plan policies. I have no reason to disagree with this assessment and have therefore not pursued this matter any further.

The appellant has suggested that were I to find the development/works associated with Barn 1 to be unacceptable that I consider issuing a split decision by removing Barn 1 from any grant of planning permission, thereby allowing the remaining modern buildings to be granted change of use to commercial B8. However, given that the position regarding the former barn to the south of Barn 4 has not been addressed, it is not possible to consider this option as the building appears to have formerly stood within this wider building complex.

Overall, the cumulative benefits of the development/works, which include the matters highlighted above, are worthwhile but nevertheless carry limited weight in favour of the scheme. However, these benefits would not be of sufficient magnitude to outweigh the harm and related policy conflicts identified to the heritage assets. That harm is significant and permanent and such that the scheme is not in accordance with the development plan when considered as a whole.

For the above reasons and taking account of all other material considerations, I conclude that both appeals should be dismissed.