Appeal 6003081

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by Belport Adlington Ltd. against [site address] Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The original applicant is the person/company name on the planning application form submitted to the Council. In this case, whilst no applicant’s name has been entered on the application form, c/o Cross Town Planning is specified. This matches that entered on the appeal form. Through written submissions, and orally at the Hearing, the applicant and appellant’s name as well as land ownership status was clarified with the parties. I have therefore used this name in the banner heading above and am satisfied no party is prejudiced by this approach. I am also satisfied the correct notice was served on the owner of the land at the time the application was submitted.

The heritage status of the [site address] (the appeal building) is not addressed in either the Council’s decision notice or the officer report. However, the appellant’s Heritage Statement (HS) submitted at the application stage1 identifies the appeal building as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). As the status of the appeal building is of relevance to the determination of the appeal and given correspondence submitted during the appeal and the lack of clarity on this matter, at my request, the parties were given the opportunity to submit comments. The Council’s subsequent Statement of Case and the Statement of [name] (SOCG) conclude that the appeal building is a NDHA. 1 Heritage Statement, Jon Lowe Heritage, [name]. 00627 V.1, dated December 2024.

I have had regard to the parties’ written submissions in this matter, as well as what I heard orally at the Hearing. Not being on a formal local list does not prohibit the building from being considered a NDHA. From the information before me and my own observations, I am satisfied that the appeal building’s assessment and designation as a NDHA is objective and valid. This means it is a building which has a degree of heritage significance meriting consideration in planning decisions, but which does not meet the criteria for designated heritage assets2.

This status provides no statutory protection. However, Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that ‘the effect of an application on the significance of a NDHA should be taken into account in determining the application’. Consequently, I have considered the appeal on this basis and included this matter as a main issue. Given that both parties have had an opportunity to comment on the status of the building, have referred to policy HER7 of the Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Document, adopted December 2020 (SADPD) concerned with NDHAs, and have each considered the perceived effects of the proposal on the appeal property in their respective evidence, I am satisfied that their interests are not prejudiced by this approach.

The appeal site lies within the boundaries of the [name]* registered Park and Garden known as Adlington Hall3. Amongst other matters, the Council’s decision notice refers to perceived effects of the proposal on the significance of this registered Park and Garden and on the setting of other listed buildings. These include Adlington Hall4 ([name]) and [name] and Gates to [name] of Adlington Hall5 ([name]). Mindful of the statutory duty set out in Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving these listed buildings or their setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which they possess.

A partially signed but undated ‘Planning Obligation by way of [name] under Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990’ (UU) was submitted as part of the appeal. The detail of the UU was discussed at the Hearing, and an amended UU dated 27 March [address] of the Hearing with my agreement and that of the main parties.

I am satisfied that the requirement for contributions is in line with the approach as set out in the Council’s Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document (2015), and that the amended UU meets the provisions of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and the tests in the Framework6. Consequently, I have had regard to the UU in my determination of the appeal.

In this appeal, there is a degree of overlap in the assessment of matters relating to non-designated and designated heritage assets, I have therefore considered them together under a single main issue. With this in mind, the main issues are: 2 Planning Practice Guidance: Paragraph: 039 [name]: 18a-039-20190723. 3 National Heritage List for England, [name]: 1000636; date listed: 10 June 1985. 4 National Heritage List for England, [name]: 1234130; date listed: 25 July 1952. 5 National Heritage List for England, [name]: 1138855; date listed: 14 April 1967. 6 Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and Paragraph 58 of the Framework. • The effect of the proposal on the significance of the appeal building as a NDHA, and whether the proposal would preserve the special architectural or historic interest, including settings, of the [name]* registered Park and Garden known as [site address] , the [name] listed [site address] (the Hall) and the [name] listed [name] and Gates to [name] of [site address] (the [name]); • The effect of the proposal on the landscape character of the area; • The effect of the proposal on [name], namely bats; and, • Whether the proposal would accord with the Council’s development plan strategy for the location of housing, with particular regard to accessibility to services and facilities.

The appeal building is a tall brick storage building of late 19th century origin that occupies a prominent position fronting [site address] . It is adjacent to [address], an existing dwelling, and the [name]. The building has a simple but distinct and balanced form as a slate roof structure supported by brick piers along two open sides with gable ends of decorative perforated brickwork, which provide an attractive feature on the building. Its relative open construction promotes air movement and, when not filled with hay, wood, or other stored materials, permits visibility through the building. The HS notes a variety of timbers spanning between the brick piers with the possibility that some may include salvaged historic timbers from elsewhere on the Adlington estate.

Having regard to the submitted evidence and mindful of the definition of significance for heritage policy as set out in the Framework, I consider the building’s significance to mostly stem from its local historic and architectural interest. While it is not as old as other buildings associated with the Hall, or does not include the same gentrified architectural detailing, it remains a good local illustration of a late 19th century agricultural building, to which its surviving historic fabric, simple architectural composition with decorative gables, scale and legibility of its historic function all contribute. Significance is also derived, in part, from the building’s spacious and verdant surroundings and because of its location within the registered Park and Garden.

The Park is understood to have developed from a medieval deer park which was acquired by the Legh family in the early 14th century and was enclosed in 1462. The Hall was constructed within the grounds by the family around the turn of the 16th century. Many other listed buildings and structures exist within the Park, most of which relate to the development of stables, formal gardens and pleasure grounds when it was extensively remodelled in the mid-18th century, at the same time as much of the Hall was also remodelled and extended.

The pleasure ground is known as ‘The Wilderness’, a largely wooded area located around the meandering [name] that accommodates various historic paths and structures including a ‘[name], a brick pavilion, stone domed temple, and ruins of a stone grotto. A formal water garden to the north of the Hall is balanced by a walled kitchen garden to the south of the Hall. Larger ‘[name] ponds and a sunken lawn were also created within the Park during the 18th century. Mature parkland makes up the remainder of the designated area as noted by the list entry.

Evidence indicates the historic formal approach to the Hall was along a tree-lined avenue through the Park from gates to the south-west of the Hall. However, it appears a formal approach from the east was favoured around the mid-18th century, which remains the case today where striking gates, gate piers and a lodge house form an impressive entrance to the Park and to the south-facing main entrance of the Hall. The Park’s list entry sets out that there have been few alterations to the Park since the mid-18th century and I saw, even from a short visit, that it still reflects the grandeur and diversity of its designed composition.

As such, I find the significance of the Park to be mainly derived from its underlying historic association with the Hall and the survival of a predominantly 18th century designed landscape. Important contributors in this regard are its integral relationship with the natural and remodelled topography, the sense of grandeur which arises from its openness and scale, and the presentation of historic features in a devised setting. These include the many listed buildings and structures which are inextricably linked in spatial, aesthetic and historic terms befitting the Park’s high-grade status.

Of particular relevance to this appeal is the part of the Park to the north of the Hall and here the list entry mentions that ‘the main approach to [site address] in the late 20th century is via a short service drive from the north’. Both main parties agree that this approach provides a route to the more functional part of the Hall and Park as well as the main access to the 20th century converted Mews properties. This appears to have been deliberately designed to separate the functional uses of the estate from the formal approach to the Hall from the east. Despite this, the north approach, together with its historic [name] and wooded surroundings, remains integral to the evolution of the Hall and Park, and continues to play an important role in formally marking the transition into the Park from the surrounding countryside.

Given the appeal building is a NDHA functionally associated with the Park and located within its north boundary, it forms part of the Park. Indeed, the Park’s list entry description notes the appeal building immediately east of [address] as ‘a fine, brick, C18 hay barn’, although cartographic evidence shows the building was constructed in the 19th century. Even though it is a service building, and a later addition to the Park than listed buildings within its boundaries, the appeal building is an important built component of the Park as a whole. This is because it illustrates and reinforces the wider functional elements and developmental growth associated with the Park’s operational upkeep. In this way, it makes a meaningful positive contribution to the significance of the Park as a designated heritage asset.

Until very recently, the [name] listed Hall has been in the same family ownership since its completion around 1505. Evidence, including the list entry, sets out that it first comprised of a timber-framed great hall, which was extended to the south and east in the late 16th century. Further noteworthy extensions to the building took place in the mid-17th century, and it was again remodelled in the mid-18th century to a courtyard layout. It comprises a mix of architectural styles and is part timber-framed and part brick with a stone-slate roof. Amongst other outstanding features, it incorporates paned sash, venetian, mullioned, oriel and transomed windows; a two-storey staircase turret, and a huge ionic portico on the south-facing front elevation with inscription in the frieze and the ancestral arms in the pediment. From the information before me, the interior of the Hall is no less impressive, particularly the [name] with hammer-beam roof, organ gallery and white marble fireplace.

On the above basis and what I saw, I consider that the special interest and significance of the listed building, insofar as it relates to this appeal, is predominantly derived from its historic and architectural interest. Important contributors are its age, its quadrangular plan form set around a central courtyard, surviving traditional fabric, high-quality craftmanship and architectural features, its varied but harmonious composition, and its connection with the same family for 700 years. The age, quality and well-preserved features of the Hall’s interior is particularly remarkable. As a [name] listed building, it is of exemplar status and great special interest.

Significance is also derived, in part, from the Hall’s setting and the contribution it makes to the composition and historic value of the Hall and the wider area. The Park is an intrinsic part of the aesthetic qualities of the Hall as it was intended to be experienced within a deliberately designed landscape. Therefore, the Park forms an important part of the listed building’s setting. The many other listed buildings within the Park7, together with its scale and designed landscape provide an impressive reminder of the former wealth and illustrious history of the Hall. The Hall has group value with these other listed buildings insofar as they are each individually and collectively integral parts of the Park and also provide reciprocal and overlapping settings for each other.

The appellant argues that the appeal building makes only a minor contribution to the special interest of the Hall. It is put to me that there is no direct inter-visibility between the Hall and the appeal building, that it represents a late stage in the overall development of the estate, is a functional ancillary building with low sensitivity to change and is inferior in the overall hierarchy of structures.

However, the appeal building is an integral part of the Park and, as confirmed by the appellant, is ‘experienced as a historic building together with other historic structures within the Park’. It is clearly visible along the Hall’s northern driveway when approaching the Hall from this direction. Although this is not the primary view from the Hall, it is a historic access and contributes to the setting of the Hall. The appeal building is also seen in the same views as other historic service buildings located to the east of the Hall. Nevertheless, I acknowledge the appeal building and the Hall are not seen within the same visual envelope and in this regard, the appeal site makes only a minor positive contribution to the setting and thus the significance of the Hall.

The list entry indicates that the [name] listed [name] were built in the late 17th century, although historic maps submitted by the appellant indicate that they 7 Listed at pages 6 and 7 of the appellant’s Heritage Statement, Jon Lowe Heritage, [name]. 00627 V.1, dated December 2024. may have been built much later than this. They are set back from [site address] attached to a curved splayed access and comprise of rusticated sandstone piers on a moulded plinth with ball finials positioned either side and supporting a pair of iron gates. Behind the piers are octagonal cast-iron posts to which the gates can be fastened. As an attractive entrance point, even if it evolved as a secondary, service entrance to the Hall and is not in frequent use, it remains legible as a formal point between the public and private access to a Hall and Park of great distinction.

From the evidence and what I saw, the significance of the [name] mostly derives from their historic and architectural interest. Important contributors in these regards are their surviving historic fabric; architectural style and historic relationship with the Hall and Park as part of the Adlington estate ensemble.

Along with the remodelling and evolution of the Hall and Park, the views in which the [name] is experienced, and their immediate setting, has changed over time. Most notable is the erection of [address] and the appeal building which sit next to the [name]. [address] is a two-storey early 20th century unlisted building that has some vernacular merit insofar as it is constructed in traditional brick and slate materials and exhibits some thoughtful architectural features such as brick heads and a central gable on the front elevation. Its position adjacent to, but set back from the [name], makes a positive contribution to their setting insofar as it replicates the characteristic arrangement of lodges adjacent to gated entrances associated with historic Halls, as evident at the east entrance to the Park and Hall.

In contrast to [address], the appeal building is a large and prominent feature within the setting of the [name]. Given its scale, design, use and location close to the more functional access to the Hall at the [name], it provides an understanding of the historical practical functions associated with the Park, the Hall, and possibly the wider community. I find it makes a neutral contribution to the setting of the [name] and therefore does not harm its significance. Despite these buildings being constructed within its setting, the historic ascendancy of the [name] and the Hall over the appeal site remains legible to this day.

It is proposed to convert the appeal building to a single, 5-bedroom dwelling. The space between the brick piers would be infilled with glazing, apart from the garage which would be infilled with timber doors at ground floor level. At first floor level, vertical, angled timber louvres would be fitted within the reveal of the piers along all the north elevation fronting [site address] , and on part of the south (rear) elevation. Opaque glazing would be fitted behind the perforated brick gables and four conservation-grade rooflights would be installed within the rear roof-slope. The existing gated access to the appeal building from [site address] would be used and a permeable gravel parking area provided in front of the building.

The appeal building would continue to be a dominant feature in views from [site address] and beyond from the north. Due to glazing being set to the back of the distinctive brick piers, they, the perforated decorative brick gables, the traditional materials, and the scale of the building would all remain legible.

However, the juxtaposition of different materials and the prolific use of glazing on such a tall building would result in an overly complicated arrangement that would be at odds with the simpler agricultural form of the building. The proposed glazing elements of the proposal would be more reflective than the current open nature of the building which, when viewed from [site address] , allows views through to the trees beyond. Even if the appeal building were full of storage materials so that there would be no views obtainable through it, the building in this scenario would clearly retain its historic agricultural character.

Although the vertical timber louvres would reflect a feature seen on other traditional agricultural buildings in the area, they would appear as a permanent solid material that would differ considerably and detract from the current transparent form of the building. It would have the effect of the building appearing bulkier than it is at present. Moreover, when combined with the proposed glazing, the simple rhythmic appearance and character of the building would be diminished. Despite the presence of a hedgerow and several trees fronting [site address] , the extensive use of glazing at ground floor level would be visible at close range, particularly adjacent to [name] due to the slightly higher ground level as I saw at my site visit. It would also be apparent in glimpsed views by occupants of passing vehicles and cyclists and in longer-range views when approaching the site from the north along Public Right of Way (FP40) (PROW). In all these views, the building would be read as a large domestic property which would undermine the integrity of its historic agricultural design.

The light that would emanate from the glazing as a whole during hours of poor ambient light or darkness would further emphasise the residential nature of the appeal site. I have considered whether a condition controlling the specification of the glazing as discussed at the Hearing could adequately mitigate this concern were the appeal to be allowed. However, the effectiveness of such glazing is unclear and this detail is important in understanding the proposed changes and any effects that they may have on the significance of the NDHA. It would not be appropriate nor acceptable to leave such an important matter to a condition, as I cannot be sure that it would be effective and capable of implementation. In any event, even if there were such glazing, it would not overcome the harm I find to the overall character and appearance of the appeal building.

I recognise that significant effort has been made in the building’s design. No part of the glazing or timber louvres would project beyond the plane of any elevation of the existing building. As such, I accept the envelope of the building would be discernible and that contemporary design can, in some circumstances, be an appropriate approach to the alteration of a historic building. Even so, the proposed timber louvre and glazed infilling between the brick piers would, in this case, draw focus to the overall height of the building, emphasis its scale and erode the functional architectural and historical attributes of the building, to the detriment of the overall appearance of the NDHA.

I note the re-use of some rural buildings is supported through permitted development rights. Policy RUR14 of the SADPD also supports the residential re-use of rural buildings, subject to several criteria, one of which is that the proposals must be sympathetic to the building’s architectural character and/or historic interest. For the reasons I have set out above, this would not be the case in this appeal.

The SOCG confirms both parties’ agreement that the appeal building is of permanent and substantial construction and capable of conversion. This view is supported by the appellant’s structural report (SR)8. Despite this, the plans indicate the gable elevations would be removed, recorded and rebuilt on a like-for-like basis. It was clarified by the appellant at the Hearing that the exact condition of brickwork on the gable-ends would not be known until the conversion works began. In which case, it was put to me that the preference would be to obtain permission for their rebuilding in the event it was found to be structurally necessary during the course of the conversion. The Council raise no objection to this scenario.

However, the SR clearly advises through an external inspection of the gables, that they are generally reasonably plumb with no sign of significant movement or cracking. It goes on to state that despite signs of efflorescence deposits, climbing plants and areas where bricks have locally broken down, these factors do not appear to have advanced to the point where they constitute a structural defect. It is noted that brickwork is in fair condition, needing no more than routine maintenance to repoint, replace bricks and clean. [name] note the SR was carried out two years ago, it is unlikely the building would have deteriorated to such an extent that the SR is of no value. I therefore find no compelling case to demonstrate the rebuilding of the gable walls would be necessary as indicated on the plans. If it were, this would, in a small way, diminish the authenticity of the building and its significance, which further adds to the harm I have found in relation to this NDHA.

Furthermore, while the garage for the dwelling would be incorporated within the appeal building in order that no additional external structures would be required, the arrangement of parking for domestic vehicles fronting the building and the proposed planted garden area would give the appearance of a residential layout. Due to its enclosure, this would still be the case even if bound by hedgerows or a post and rail fence and if permitted development rights were removed for ancillary structures in the event the appeal were allowed. Such a layout would overtly contrast with the unenclosed, operational character of the land as part of the Park, even if this land sometimes accommodates vehicles and other paraphernalia associated with the building’s agricultural/storage use.

Overall, the proposal would be harmful to the historic functional form, simple architectural merit and the immediate surroundings of the appeal building. It would therefore be harmful to the significance of the building as a NDHA.

In respect of the designated heritage assets, I have reasoned above that the appeal site has some value to the significance of the Park and the setting of the Hall insofar as it provides an understanding of historical functional features associated with the Park and the Hall. In causing harm to the significance of a NDHA located within the Park, it follows that there would also be a harmful effect on the Park’s special interest given the NDHA makes a positive contribution to its significance. Similarly, although I consider the appeal site makes only a minor contribution to the setting of the Hall, and a neutral contribution to the setting of the [name], the setting of both these designated heritage assets would be harmed.

I am mindful of the predominant residential use of the Hall and its larger associated historic buildings, some of which have already been converted to 8 [name] ‘Report on General Condition of [name] with Respect to [name] dated 22 April 2024. residential use. This does not mean that all historic buildings in the Park are suitable for such conversion.

In this case, the residential use of the appeal site would disrupt the hierarchical understanding of the designed landscape through the introduction of a large domestic property in a prominent location at a gateway to the Park and Hall. The physical alterations to the appeal building would make it conspicuously noticeable, and its domestication would change a central component of its significance, that being its historically utilitarian and purely functional purpose. Overall, the proposal would unacceptably augment the appearance and status of the appeal building. It would not preserve or enhance those qualities which I have identified to be important to the historic value of the Park, the setting of the Hall and the setting of the [name]. Moreover, the formal subdivision of the building’s immediate surroundings to form a separate domestic garden and parking area would add to this harm.

These identified harmful effects would be screened to a degree when viewed from [site address] and the wider area by existing boundary treatment and mature trees in the months when they would be in full leaf. However, this cannot be relied on to entirely obscure the proposal from view. Whilst there is little to indicate that these views were designed or were historic views, it is part of the way that the Park is experienced.

My attention has been drawn by the appellant to a ‘prior approval for a proposed general purpose building’ that was granted by the Council on 13 December 20249. This scheme relates to a large agricultural building located on land opposite the appeal site, adjacent to a farm track (also forming part of the PROW) on the north side of [site address] . At the time of my site visit, neither this building, nor any part of the proposed concrete apron fronting the building, had been erected. Nonetheless, the prior approval is extant and if constructed, the building would not be insubstantial at just over 8 metres to the ridge with a floor area of approximately [address] metres.

Unlike the prior approval scheme, the appeal building is a NDHA located within the designed landscape of the Park rather than clearly separate from it. The prior approval scheme would introduce a prominent building into the setting of the appeal building, the [name] and the Park. If implemented, it would alter the setting within which they would be experienced but not to the extent that it would lessen the visual presence or importance of these heritage assets. Despite its scale and proximity to these assets, given the modern design and materials of the proposed agricultural building, and that it would be located outside the Park on agricultural land, the prior approval scheme would appear wholly appropriate in this predominantly actively worked and managed agricultural context. Indeed, I note the officer report relating to the prior approval scheme states that the Hall itself is closely associated with agriculture with the estate including arable and pasture land surrounding the grounds.

I acknowledge that change to a heritage asset does not automatically result in harm to its significance and change can also be positive or neutral and it only becomes harmful if the identified special interest is eroded. Also, conservation is an active process of managing change to heritage assets in ways that sustain, 9 [name]: 24/4650/PRIOR-6. reveal or reinforce their heritage interests. However, in all of the respects outlined above, the proposal would not, in the terms of paragraph 139(b) of the Framework, fit with the overall form and layout of its immediate surroundings. It would markedly weaken the heritage interests of the NDHA and the relevant designated heritage assets and erode their identified special interest and significance.

To conclude on this main issue, for the reasons given above, in undertaking a balanced judgement, I consider that the proposal would harmfully diminish the fundamental elements which contribute to the local interest and significance of the appeal building as a NDHA. It would also not preserve the special architectural or historic interest, including settings, of the [name]* registered Park and Garden known as [site address] , the [name] listed [site address] and the [name] listed [name] and Gates to [name] of [site address] .

Therefore, the proposal would conflict with policies SE1 and SE7 of the [site address] Local Plan Strategy 2010-2030, adopted July 2017 (CELPS) and, insofar as it relates to this main issue, to policy SD2 of the CELPS. It would also conflict with policies RUR14, HER4, HER5 and HER7 of the SADPD. Together, insofar as relevant, they seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment. In relation to the designated heritage assets, it would fail to satisfy the requirements of section 66(1) of the Act and in doing so would cause harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets.

A key aim of Policy SE4 of the CELPS is to ensure that all development conserves landscape character and quality. Policy ENV3 of the SADPD reiterates that development proposals should respect the qualities, features and characteristics that contribute to the distinctiveness of the local area, as described in the [site address] Landscape Character Assessment, adopted May 2018 (CELCA).

While the appeal site does not fall within a National Landscape, information before me indicates that the appeal site sits within a ‘[name] landscape character type as set out in the CELCA. The appellant also notes the site is located within the ‘North Fringe Character Area’ as defined in the SPD. Such areas are characterised by gently rolling farmed landscape with a high density of woodland. The appeal site and its immediate surroundings are characteristic of this landscape type, which also includes the historic registered Park, and dispersed farmsteads and villages. Given the appeal building’s age and specific architectural form, it makes a positive contribution to the established landscape character and appearance of the surrounding rural area.

The Council argues that the proposal would be harmful to this rural setting due to its location within the designed historic estate landscape. In disputing this assertion, the appellant has provided an assessment that is focussed on three viewpoints from which the appeal site would be publicly visible. Although this is only a visual assessment, and the Council claims that the methodology used is not in accordance with recognised guidelines10, neither has the Council robustly assessed the effect of the proposal on the landscape using this guidance. 10 Landscape Institute and Institute of Environmental Management and Assessment, 2013; and Landscape Institute Technical Guidance Note 06/19 ‘[name] of Development Proposals’, January 2024.

There is a distinction to be made between impact on landscape, which should be treated as a resource, and impact on visual amenity, which is the effect on people observing the development in places where the development can be viewed, such as settlements, roads, public rights of way and individual dwellings.

In relation to visual effects, during my site visits I was able to observe the site, and its context, from several viewpoints, including those identified by the appellant. In close views, from the two main visual receptors identified in the evidence as [site address] and the PROW, the appearance of the building and its immediate surroundings would change. The decorative gables and brick piers would remain clearly visible. However, there would still be views, at various points along [site address] and the PROW, of ground floor glazing and domestic activity as to be expected of such a residential use. This would occur when the trees were not in full leaf, and also at the field gate fronting [site address] and the [name] when the appeal site would not appear to be in agricultural use.

In visual terms, such views would be relatively contained and not unexpected considering the site’s proximity to the domestic property at [address] and being close to the edge of Adlington. The existing hedging and trees to the [site address] frontage would provide some screening in those views from the road and on the approach along the PROW towards the building. In my view, while the appearance of the appeal site would be domesticated, and this would be likely to be a permanent visual change, there would be a minor adverse magnitude of harm.

From my observations on site, the proposal would result in negligible adverse impacts over the longer distant views of the appeal site. While the appeal building is tall, given the topography of the area and intervening woodland, it is not clearly visible. In any long-distant views that may be obtainable, only the upper part of the appeal building would be apparent. Since much of this would comprise timber louvres, even with lights on in the building, it would have the appearance of a building nestled close to woodland when viewed in the wider landscape, which would not be unusual or harmful.

In relation to character, different considerations apply. A notable characteristic of the appeal site is its location at the outer edge of the Park as a simple historic functional building. This is an important factor in the context of its rural landscape setting and the contribution the designed landscape makes to the integrity and significance of the Park. It therefore follows that in causing harm to the special interest of the Park, as I find to be the case in the first main issue, harm would be caused to its landscape character. However, the loss of its current agricultural character would be localised to the site and its immediate context. The land and building would still be perceived to be part of the Park. Thus, even though the magnitude of change upon the building itself would be relatively high, the residual effects on the immediate landscape character would be minor and on the wider landscape character would be negligible.

My attention is drawn to the [site address] Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, Volume 1: Setting the Scene of [site address] , adopted May 2017 insofar as it states the conversion of former farm buildings to residential use adds character and acts as a reminder of early settlement origins in many cases. Be that as it may, for the reasons above, the landscape character and quality would not be conserved.

Planning conditions could be imposed, in the event the appeal was allowed, to restrict further development at the site, as well as specifying the type of glazing in order to limit light spill. However, such conditions would not sufficiently mitigate the identified harm to the immediate landscape.

Consequently, on this issue I conclude that the proposal would result in minor adverse harm to the immediate landscape character. This would result in conflict with Policies SE4 and HER5 of the CELPS and Policy ENV3 of the SADP which, together, amongst other things, seek that development conserves landscape character and quality.

The appellant submitted a [name] Report11 (BSR) at application stage which found evidence of a bat day roost within the appeal building for common pipistrelle bats. Thus, there is credible evidence of a reasonable likelihood of protected species being affected as the bat roost would be likely to be lost as a result of the proposed conversion works. The SOCG confirms that both main parties agree the loss of the roost, in the absence of mitigation, is likely to have a low impact upon bats at the local level and a low impact on the conservation status of the species as a whole.

Regulation 9 (3) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Regulations) imposes a duty on me to have regard to the likelihood of bats, a [name] (EPS), being present and affected by the proposed development. Furthermore, Circular 06/200512 states that the presence of a protected species is a material consideration when a development proposal is being considered which would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat. This is also reflected in Policy SE3 of the CELPS.

Both parties agree that an EPS licence would be required from Natural England (NE) to carry out the works. Decisions about whether a licence can be granted are the responsibility of NE and are under a separate process. Ultimately, the existence of protected species on the site need not be an impediment to the granting of a licence by NE, nor the implementation of planning permission. Nevertheless, as the appropriate decision-maker I am required by the Regulations to have regard to the requirements of the [name] in the determination of this appeal. In effect I am required to consider whether there would be a reasonable prospect of a licence being granted by applying the following three derogation tests: (a) preserving public health or public safety or other imperative reasons of overriding public interest; (b) that there is no satisfactory alternative; and (c) that the action will not be detrimental to maintaining the population of the species concerned at a favourable conservation status in its natural range.

In order for NE to issue a licence, all three of the tests must be met. Contrary to the appellant’s assertion, the Council clearly set out in the officer report and statement that, in their opinion, tests (a) and (b) would not be met. On the basis of the evidence, in my view, in terms of test (a), even though the proposal would make a contribution to the supply of housing in an area which, on the evidence before me, has a shortfall in supply, I have found there would be harm to the significance of heritage assets and to the landscape character of the area. The 11 [name], 25 November 2024 Ref: [name]. 16902_RO1_EG. 12 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – [name] and their Impacts within the Planning System. modest scale of the development when considered against this harm, would not be sufficient to amount to an imperative reason of overriding public interest. I cannot be certain this test would be met.

With regard to test (b), I recognise that the design of the proposed dwelling would be unique and would be unlikely to be replicated elsewhere. However, NE guidance13 recognises that there are always going to be alternatives to a proposal and, in terms of licensing decisions, it is for NE to determine that a reasonable level of effort has been expended in the search for alternative means of achieving the development whilst minimising the impact on the EPS. In other words, NE expects the appellant to demonstrate that alternatives have been considered, explain what those alternatives are, and provide a justification for the decision to select the proposed option and to discount any others. As part of the process set out in the guidance, the appellant is required to have considered the ‘do nothing’ scenario. [name] appreciate the proposal is informed and developed by the form of the appeal building and its surroundings, it has not been demonstrated that any alternatives have been considered. I cannot be certain this test would be met.

In relation to test (c), an enhancement strategy for bats has been set out in the BSR in order to mitigate the loss of the roost. This includes the provision of three bat boxes, which the submitted plan indicates would be installed on the gables of the building and a retained tree or mounted on a pole prior to redevelopment of the appeal building. Other information submitted with the appeal and orally at the Hearing, would involve careful placing of external lighting. In this respect, from the information before me, I agree with the main parties that suitable mitigation could be provided by condition, in the event the appeal were allowed, to ensure the population of the species would be maintained at favourable status. Thus test (c) would be satisfied.

From the information available to me, as I cannot be certain that all the tests would be met, I cannot conclude that there would be a reasonable prospect of a derogation licence being granted by NE.

Accordingly, I conclude that there would be a harmful effect of the proposal on EPS, namely bats. For this reason, the proposal would not accord with the Regulations. It would conflict with Policy SE3 of the CELPS insofar as development that is likely to have an adverse impact on a protected species will not be permitted except where the reasons for or benefits of the proposal outweigh the impact, which is not the case in this appeal. The proposal would also conflict with guidance at paragraph 193 of the Framework which seeks to minimise harmful effects on biodiversity.

It is not disputed by the main parties that appeal site is located outside a settlement and is in open countryside. The Council contend it would result in an isolated home on the countryside. However, it is near to the gated entrance and to other residential properties on the [site address] estate. This, together with its physical proximity to [address] and presence and visibility fronting [site address] on the edge of Adlington, is sufficient to prevent the appeal site from appearing isolated in terms of paragraph 84 of the Framework. Notwithstanding, a dispute remains between the main parties as to whether the site would have good access 13 Natural England, ‘[name]: [name] – How to get a licence’ [name] 2013. to shops and services to the extent that it should be considered to be a sustainable location for a new dwelling.

The Council seeks, amongst other things, to prioritise the most accessible and sustainable locations for development, as set out in Policy SD1 of the CELPS. This includes where it would contribute to the creation of sustainable communities, where access to local jobs, services and facilities is accessible by public transport, walking and cycling. Policy SD2, Part 2 ii of the CELPS sets out an expectation that residential development will provide access to a range of forms of public transport, open space and key services and amenities. The justification to this policy also notes that consideration will be given to the quality of those routes.

A definition of ‘range’ is provided in footnote 37 of Policy SD2 as being within the maximum recommended distance of a bus stop, open space, and convenience store, in addition to four more other services or amenities, dependant on location. A guide to the ‘recommended distance’ of 20 listed transport, open space, services and amenity criteria is provided in Table 9.1 of the justification text to the policy.

Although the appellant has completed Table 9.1, their preferred measure in seeking to demonstrate the appeal site has good access to services and facilities is assessing the sites’ location against the Department for [name] (the Tool)14. While the Tool affords some weight when considering the site’s locational accessibility, in spite of the fact it was published after the CELPS, it is guidance rather than adopted policy. In any event, the appeal site has a relatively low score in terms of connectivity when assessed against the parameters of the Tool.

Adlington is the closest settlement to the appeal site, approximately 500m away. It has some services and facilities, including a train station, public house, bus stop, post box and village hall. [name] and [name] lie on the edge of the settlement, accessed along a footway. The PROW is 20m from the appeal site. Although only 5 criteria out of the 20 listed in Table 9.1 would be strictly met, a post box and bus stop are located only 100m beyond the recommended distance, which to my mind is negligible.

From my observations, I saw Adlington Memorial Park is not a public park or village green and that there is presently no children’s playground or outdoor sports facility in Adlington for any of its inhabitants. Therefore, the appeal site’s location within the Park, albeit private land, may provide opportunities for occupants of the proposed dwelling to access a large area of communal open space that other occupants of Adlington may not.

There is no convenience store within 500m of the site. Future occupiers would therefore need to travel at least as far as the closest larger settlement of Poynton, approximately 4km away, to shop for day to day items.

However, the appeal site’s proximity to Adlington train station, 700m away, is an important factor. Evidence indicates this train station has a reasonably regular service to Poynton, Macclesfield, Manchester, and Stoke-on-Trent, where the full range of services and amenities would be available within a reasonably short travel time. The site is also within 600m of a bus stop, although neither main party was able to confirm the bus route or its regularity at the Hearing. I also saw that 14 Department for [name], published 26 June 2025, last updated December 2025 Hope Green Industrial Estate is reasonably close to Adlington and could provide employment opportunities easily by bicycle along [address], which also has a continuous segregated footway, although not lit along its full length. While occupants of the proposed dwelling may choose to drive the short distance to Poynton or Macclesfield for some amenities and facilities, Adlington’s train station would provide an arguably better option for regular commuting to Manchester or Stoke-on-Trent. Therefore, the appeal site benefits from a relatively good level of connectivity for a rural area.

In order to access the amenities in Adlington on foot or bicycle, in particular the train station and bus stop, occupants of the proposed dwelling would have to walk along a footway on the south side of [site address] , then a stretch of grass verge, cross [site address] and continue along a footway on its north side to [address]. As part of the submitted UU, a stretch of [site address] would be provided with a footway where there is currently none and timber bollards would be positioned either side of the road to indicate a pedestrian crossing point to drivers. As confirmed by both parties at the Hearing, this would ensure a continuous segregated footway between the site and amenities in Adlington.

[site address] is a narrow, unlit countryside road with a speed limit of 60mph. Whilst this could reduce the attractiveness of using the footway to access public transport, especially during hours of darkness to some people, there is nothing substantive to suggest that walking or cycling the short distance from the appeal site along the relatively straight and level footway to [address] or the village hall on [site address] would be inherently unsafe. I saw at my site visit that, for the most part, the footway is covered in vegetation due to infrequent use. However, as part of a public highway, its maintenance would be the responsibility of the Council.

The width and design of the proposed new section of footway and timber bollards would ultimately be subject to approval from the Highway Authority. Although their informal advice suggests concerns in this regard, given the ‘[address] Scheme’ defined in the UU provides flexibility and that the appellant owns land adjacent to the highway, I am satisfied there would be a reasonable prospect of its delivery. I also recognise that any future works implemented outside the public highway may require planning permission when matters such as biodiversity net gain could be addressed.

I note that the walk to [name] for those already residing in Adlington is also along an unlit footway on [address]. The walk from the appeal site to the school would not be significantly longer, even for a young child, and the characteristics of the walk along [site address] would be similar to that on [address]. However, I do find the appellant’s suggestion that the referenced PROW would provide an alternative access to Adlington for pedestrians would not be attractive due to its uneven and more circuitous route across fields, particularly in inclement weather or during the hours of darkness.

Drawing the above together, and irrespective of the outcome of the [name] Report15 referred to by the parties, while the appeal site would not be within the recommended distance of the ‘range’ of services and amenities referred to in Part 2 ii of Policy SD2 of the CELPS, it would be within the recommended distance of a PROW, railway station, bank or cash machine, local meeting place 15 Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government ‘[name]: Report to government’, published 28 September 2025. and public house. A bus stop and post box are also located in Adlington, as well as a [name]. However, in being close to a railway station and recognising that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas, I find that future occupants of the proposal would have access to public transport, and thus the full range of services and facilities, by walking or cycling a short distance. Moreover, the proposal would make a small contribution to supporting the role and function of Adlington that is sought through paragraph 83 of the Framework.

Consequently, I conclude on this main issue that the proposal would not be isolated and would accord with the Council’s development plan strategy for the location of housing, with particular regard to accessibility to services and facilities. It would comply with Policies SD1 and SD2 of the CELPS which, amongst other matters, require development to prioritise the most accessible and sustainable locations including a range of forms or public transport, open space and key services and amenities.

The appeal site is located within the wider surroundings of other [name] listed buildings16. Mindful of the statutory duty set out in the Act, I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving their settings. The historic built backdrop and verdant surroundings of these buildings and structures positively contribute to their significance. Nevertheless, given its location, extent, and relationship to these buildings, I consider that the proposal would not harm and would therefore preserve the settings of these listed buildings and the contribution they make to their significance. I note the Council had no concerns in this regard either.

The proposal would be harmful to the significance of the NDHA and would not preserve the special architectural or historic interest, including settings, of the [name]* registered Park, the [name] listed Hall and the [name] listed [name]. The proposal would also result in harm to the area’s landscape character and on EPS, namely bats.

Paragraph 216 of the Framework requires that I undertake a balanced judgement having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the appeal building as a NDHA. In relation to the designated heritage assets assessed above, Paragraph 212 of the Framework advises that when considering the impact of a proposed 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 any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification.

In finding harm to the significance of designated heritage assets referred to above, the magnitude of that harm should be assessed. There is inevitably a differential level of harm to the significance of different heritage assets. However, as a fair and proportionate summary, on account of the various moderating factors articulated in paragraphs 38 to 41 above, I consider the harm to the Park and to the setting of the Hall and [name] to amount to a low to medium level of less than 16 Listed at pages 6 and 7 of the appellant’s Heritage Statement, Jon Lowe Heritage, [name]. 00627 V.1, dated December 2024 (excluding those listed in the main issues that I have already addressed in this decision). substantial harm, given the extent of the proposal and its consequent effects. Nonetheless, this harm carries considerable importance and weight.

Under such circumstances, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimal viable use. Planning Practice Guidance is clear that public benefits should flow from the development or works.

There are positive heritage impacts from the repair of the appeal building’s gable ends and roof, reinstatement of metal profile gutters and by securing a long-term future use of the building. Such matters are supported by national and local planning policies and guidance. However, while I recognise the appeal building’s general open construction would limit its agricultural use, there is no compelling information before me to substantiate the appellant’s claim that its re-use as an agricultural building or any other, less harmful, functional use to support the Hall, its Park, or other surrounding agricultural uses, would not be possible or viable. There is little evidence that alternative solutions to the use of the building were explored and discounted. This limits the weight I attribute to these benefits.

There would be some short-term economic gains that would flow from the works required to convert the building which would constitute benefits to the public at large. Economic and social benefits would also accrue as a result of local spend by the building’s occupants, and its residential occupation could create the potential for full time employment and participation in the local community. The proposal could have the potential to result in an environmental benefit through the control of surface water drainage at the site. Whilst these public benefits carry weight in favour of the proposal, the overall benefits in these respects would attract limited weight because the scale of the development is only for one home.

Footway improvements and the retention of the hedgerow fronting the appeal site along [site address] are necessary to make the development acceptable in locational terms, but the footway improvements would also assist in the provision of a safer link to the wider right of way network. This would be of some minor public benefit.

I recognise the Government’s objective to boost the housing supply, particularly around railway stations. The proposed dwelling would contribute to the Council’s windfall allowance and in so doing would generate a [name] contribution. The SOCG also states that the Council cannot demonstrate a five year housing land supply which is agreed between the parties to be 3.8 years. Paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework, in conjunction with footnote 7, states that planning permission should therefore be granted unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed.

For the reasons given above, I find the totality of the heritage harm provides the strong reason for refusing the development proposed. Consequently, the proposal does not benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development.

The absence of harm in relation to other considerations, such as green belt, highway safety, trees, biodiversity net gain, and the living conditions of neighbouring residents and future occupants of the appeal building, are matters that weigh neither for nor against the proposal and do not constitute public benefits.

The proposal could be said to support the development of under-utilised land and buildings. However, the Framework is also clear that the effective use of land should also safeguard and improve the environment, which I find that the proposal would not do in respect of the historic environment and EPS.

Drawing the above together, whilst there are considerations that weigh in favour of the proposal, in my judgement, they are not sufficient to outweigh the totality of harm I have identified to the designated heritage assets, the landscape character of the area, and to EPS, namely bats. Moreover, the harm to the NDHA, would in my balanced judgement be unacceptable, notwithstanding the benefits of the proposal.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan when taken as a whole and I find there to be no material considerations, that would indicate that the appeal decision should be taken other than in accordance with it.

Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Amended wording of draft proposed condition 8 by email.

Signed and dated UU