Appeal 6003045

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of replacement gates and wall at [site address] , [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of application ref. 25/06214/FUL, subject to the conditions below.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on historic integrity.

[site address] is a roughly right-angled property towards the end of a no through road. After crossing the [name] a short distance to the south-east by [name], that road provides access to a handful of properties. The appellant’s Heritage Statement indicates that [site address] originated as a barn in the seventeenth century, albeit somewhat mimicking the succession of alterations at grade II* listed [name] to the north-west,1 became a coach house to it at some point. [name] itself is a grand, fine property, which the list entry indicates originated around 1700 in connection with the then owner of nearby [address].2

[site address] and [name] fall within the tightly-drawn [address] Conservation Area,3 the history, character and appearance of which is described in Wycombe District Council’s Conservation Area [name] of 1995. The Character Survey indicates that the attribution of [name] to around 1700 is perhaps too early, but nonetheless sets out how the area hereabouts became a hive of diverse economic activity from around that juncture at least until a fire at mill buildings in 1921.4 The 1 List entry no. 1125541, in respect of which the provisions of section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended apply. 2 The latter is beyond the pair of houses neighbouring [site address] , next to a leat arcing by the Wye (the land between the two part of [site address] ). 3 In respect of which the duty under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended applies. 4 The Character Survey also indicates that [site address] is likely to have been used as an Inn during its history, as alluded to by its name and a sign at its western elevation. [name] also refers to the secluded nature of the Conservation Area, nestled within the landform and occluded from wider view by mature trees and vegetation.

Given the origin, nature, and historic context of [site address] , there is rationally no dispute between the main parties that it is a non-designated heritage asset within the terminology of paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework (7 February 2025, the ‘NPPF’). That said, the property is now a complex amalgam of eras. The oldest elements are at ground floor; English bond brickwork at the southern gable elevation by the road being evidently historic and featuring a diaper pattern of vitrified headers. That elevation has been altered historically as the brickwork changes around first floor level (appearing more recent, albeit still in Flemish bond).

Moving northwards, the ground level of the property increases in steps reflecting the rising landform in that direction towards the elevated plot of [name] and to bridleway WOO/15/2, [name], beyond (next to the substantial M40 embankment). The western elevation of the property, facing across its garden obliquely in the direction of [name] beyond a substantial wall with infilled segmental arches, illustrates the historic construction of the property (timber-framed with brick infill). As with the southern gabled elevation, there have been various alterations and additions to the property over time: in particular former openings denoted again by segmental arches and beams have been infilled (including, on occasion, with ostensibly modern bricks arranged in stretcher bond).

Attached to the southern gable is a single storey dual-pitched outrigger beside the road, behind which is [name]. The latter is a property ostensibly of mid twentieth century origin, being principally of stock brick and russet tiles. As with the western elevation of the property above there are echoes, albeit fainter, of historic construction in the form of timber framing infilled with brick (here timber framing being uprights topped with short, curved braces). Nevertheless, externally at least, the outrigger appears almost entirely of modern materials, including accommodating a pair of garage doors.

As on the site plan,5 the plot of [site address] extends beyond its southern elevation to encompass an area of gravelled land used for parking. The current boundary gates enclosing the garden are set in from the line of the southern gable elevation by several metres rather than flush with it.6 The proposal is effectively to move that physical boundary closer to the road, albeit still some 0.2m back from the line of the southern elevation. Standard five-bar timber gates currently present, modern and standardised rather than historic or vernacular, would be replaced with a wall which would be timber framed with brickwork infill and brick arches above solid timber gates.7

Moving beyond the site, the property immediately to the south-west is [address], semi-detached with its neighbour [address]. Whilst the [name] sets out that those properties are converted from the old drying house associated with the industrial past of the area, that is not now readily perceptible. [address] and [address] are understated, their elevations being principally painted render and cladding (reflecting nothing by way of historic construction externally). Their plot boundaries are demarcated variously by upright sleepers, fence panels and planting. Given the historic economic ecosystem founded on the Wye here, [site address] , [address], [address] and [address] to the south are identified as a significant grouping of unlisted buildings in the [name].

Similarly reflecting an accretion of change over time, [address] is only appreciably historic in respect of its south-western elevation by the weir. The boundary between [address] and its neighbour [name] is demarcated by a brick wall topped with a solider course. [name] and The Millstone beyond, as with [name], 5 On which is annotated ‘Unique plan reference: P2f/uk/1242009/1667127’. 6 As shown on plan no. 25/04/01. 7 As shown on plan no. 25/04/02, the officer report noting that the height of the proposed wall would be between 2.3 and 2.6m. appear mid-to-late twentieth century in materials and construction. The Character Survey aptly summarises how ‘the area is now wholly residential and in-fill development has occurred over the years’.

There are 2 significant views, or viewpoints, annotated by way of arrows on the [address] Conservation Area map at page 3 of the [name]. There is, however, no visibility of [site address] from the viewpoint to the west of [name] along the bridleway.8 The viewpoint by access to [name] looking towards [address] and [address], with [site address] to one side and [address] to the other, is described in the [name] simply as ‘important to the character of the conservation area’. There is nothing beyond that.

The scheme would inherently result in a more substantial plot boundary closer to the road. That would be both in respect of height, and in terms of substance. Although emulating an historic aesthetic, the proposal would evidently not be historic in materials or construction. It is a truism that the presence of modern development does not, in itself, justify further development. I also note that the gates currently present do not purport to be in any sense historic, unlike the scheme before me which would incorporate certain references to the existing building (matching brick, arches, and timber detailing).

Nonetheless various properties, not least [site address] , have changed markedly over time. The Character Survey itself describes the cluster of properties of which it is part as ‘much altered from their original state’. There has also been a progressive intensification of development here. Various properties and associated boundary features have been established through the twentieth century as above.

As such historic integrity is most clearly attested to in the location of historic buildings relative to their surrounding environment and, to varying degrees, in their embodied fabric. As also set out above, plot boundary features hereabouts are varied in materials, scale and design. There is nothing historic that would be lost by virtue of the scheme. Neither the greater scale of the proposed boundary, nor its positioning closer to the road, would adversely affect character and appearance or historic integrity in the foregoing context.

The Council contend that the scheme would reflect some form of ‘pastiche’ or ‘contrived’ addition. The inference, presumably, is that the scheme would interfere with an understanding of the historic nature of [site address] and its relationship to its surroundings. Nevertheless, I have set out above how [site address] is now a somewhat complex multiphase property. The proposed wall would not in my view interfere with an ability to discern that history (particularly on account of leaving the southern gable elevation to the property essentially unaffected).

Moreover the proposed wall would be less substantial, and less apparent from the viewpoint to the east of [site address] , than the existing outrigger (which, as above, externally appears entirely modern). In this instance to some extent emulating the construction and form of elements of [site address] and boundary walls to its plot would not be discordant or jar with historic integrity. Subject to ensuring appropriate materials via condition, and on account of its set back from the line of the southern gable elevation, the scheme would instead appear understated, recessive and in harmony with its immediate context. Even a cursory inspection of the wall once built would indicate that it is not historic in origin.

In respect of openness, the [name] accurately describes how [site address] , [address], [address] and [address] are a ‘very close knit grouping where 8 As reflected in its purpose, described in the [name] as allowing for a ‘view of [name] in an open setting...’. the buildings themselves predominate’. As above, the Conservation Area is also nestled or enclosed within the topography and mature landscape features, rather than open or permeable. I therefore do not agree with the Council’s observation that the scheme would erode ‘the current sense of openness hereabouts’; that is not in any sense apparent or characteristic.

There is furthermore no indication that openness was historically important; the history of industrial uses here, topography, boundary walls and landscaping tending to suggest to the contrary. Moreover, the scheme would enable vehicles associated with [site address] to be parked behind it rather than in front of it beside the road where they would themselves affect openness. All told, therefore any practical implications in terms of loss of openness would tend towards negligible.

Evidently there is some associative history to [site address] in conjunction with [name], the former being part of the setting of the latter. That, however, is a connection which has changed over time. As above, [site address] originated as a barn, became a coach house and potentially an inn thereafter, and has since been a private house for many years. To the extent that there is a connection with the listed building, that is now appreciable more theoretically than in actuality.

Although setting extends to more than visual interrelationships, there is nonetheless limited intervisibility between [site address] and [name]; any appreciable connection between the two in that respect, or indeed aesthetically, is dilute. Intervisibility which exists between the two from the public realm, principally of the gable end of [site address] with the roof of [name] beyond intervening boundary features and planting, would not be meaningfully affected by the scheme on account of the difference in ground level between the two.

For the above reasons, the scheme would have no appreciable adverse implications in respect of historic integrity; its effects would be neutral. I therefore conclude that the proposal would accord with the expectations of section 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 as amended, and with the relevant provisions of policies CP9, CP11, DM31, DM35 and DM36 of the extant Wycombe District Local Plan (adopted August 2019), of policies WBE/PD1 and WBE/PD3 of the Wooburn and Bourne End Neighbourhood Plan (made as part of the development plan July 2023), and of NPPF paragraphs 212 and 216 insofar as seeking to appropriately safeguard historic integrity is concerned.9

Having considered the development plan as a whole along with all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions below. Those conditions require commencement within the relevant statutory period, adherence to the supporting plans in the interests of certainty, and that matching materials are used so as to ensure that the scheme integrates appropriately with its surroundings.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this

The development hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with approved plans P2f/uk/1242009/1667127, 25/04/01 and 25/04/02.

The materials used in the development hereby permitted shall accord with those annotated on approved plan no. 25/04/02.