Appeal 6002861

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site is within the [address] Conservation Area (CA) and is close to the [name] listed [name]. In considering this appeal, I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA, and the setting of the listed church, as required by sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

The main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and the setting of the listed [name].

The CA is centred around the junction of [address] and [address], and incorporates part of the Leeds and [name]. It comprises a cluster of historic buildings with an informal layout, as well as more modern developments. The spaces between the buildings, boundary treatments and numerous mature trees, both along [address] and within the CA generally, contribute to a green and rural character, despite the presence of nearby modern development.

[name] is a key landmark building within the CA, and its tower is visible from various vantage points, particularly when the surrounding trees are bare. As noted in the Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan 2024 (CAA), views of the listed church within the CA reinforce its rural character, and contribute positively to its significance.

Permission has previously been granted for electric gates with brick pillars across [address], of a similar design to those now proposed (appeal ref APP/M4320/W/21/3268667). Owing to practical issues relating to the siting of the approved gates, the current appeal proposes a revised location, closer to the estate entrance.

As for the previously approved scheme, the materials and contemporary appearance of the proposed gateway would reflect the style of the houses on [address]. However, the revised position, nearer to the junction with [address], would result in the current proposal being more prominent in the streetscene than the previous scheme, the position of which was set further back along the curved estate road.

Whilst there are a range of boundary treatments nearby, the CAA notes that low stone walls are the most common form, frequently with native hedging behind. I agree that stone walls, such as those along both sides of [address], reinforce the rural character of the CA. The introduction of the proposed gateway feature, in a prominent position, highly visible from [address], would detract from the rural character of the CA.

The landscaped areas on either side of the estate entrance provide softening, which helps to integrate the new housing development into its well treed surroundings. The proposed wing wall, which would link the new gateway to the existing stone wall on [address], would enclose part of the green area on the northern side of the estate entrance.

The appellant has indicated that the new wing wall would have hedging behind, but this is not indicated on the plans, and from my observations on site it appears that the new wall would require existing planting to be removed. This would not involve the felling of any trees, and new hedging could be required by a condition, but even so the overall effect would be to reduce the green character of the estate entrance and increase the impression of built form. This would further detract from the verdant character of this part of the CA, albeit by a small amount.

The housing development at [address] is orientated such that [name] forms a focal point at the end of the street. At the time of my visit, when the trees were still bare, the listed church and its tower were clearly visible from the junction of [address] and [address]. Once in leaf, mature trees will obscure much of the church, and views will be restricted to the upper parts of the tower. Nonetheless, this more extensive, seasonal view of the listed church makes an important and positive contribution to the character of the CA.

Compared with the previously approved scheme, the proposed gateway would be closer to the estate entrance, so from [address] would appear to be higher in the foreground. It may still be possible to see the top of the tower above the gates, and the listed church would also be visible through gaps between the metal railings. However, when viewed from the entrance to [address], the presence of closed gates across the street would dominate the streetscene, interrupting the view of the listed church to a significant extent, particularly in winter.

This particular vista has been created by the new development at [address], and as noted by the previous Inspector, is appreciated briefly when travelling along [address] from the south-east, and mainly by those using non-motorised forms of transport. Nonetheless, by partially obscuring the view, this feature of the new housing development would be lessened, restricting the ability to appreciate the listed church in its setting, and detracting from the significance of the CA.

Overall, in their revised location, the proposed gateways and pillars would fail to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the [address] CA, and would detract from the setting of the listed [name]. In coming to this view, I have taken account of the increased prominence of the gateway compared with that previously approved, as well as the Council’s updated heritage evidence in the CAA, which has been published since the previous appeal.

In terms of paragraph 214 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), the harm to the designated heritage assets and their significance would be less than substantial. I appreciate that the revised location is proposed to overcome practical problems associated with the approved scheme, and would allow all the houses to be enclosed. However, whilst they may have been designed in consultation with the [name], the installation of electric gates in this location does not constitute a public benefit, and does not outweigh the harm identified.

The proposal fails to comply with Policy EQ2 of the Sefton Local Plan 2017, which requires that developments respond positively to the character and local distinctiveness of their surroundings, and that key views, including those of landmark buildings, are retained or enhanced. There is conflict with Local Plan Policies NH9, NH11 and NH12, which together protect Sefton’s heritage assets from harmful changes, and require development affecting the setting of a listed building to respect positive existing relationships with its surroundings. Finally, the proposal does not comply with Policy MAG 4 of the Maghull Neighbourhood Plan 2019, which supports new development which respects the distinct characteristics of the Character Area in which it is located.

The proposal does not comply with the development plan, the Framework or the Act. The appeal is therefore dismissed.