Appeal 6003233

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Bassetlaw District Council. This is the subject of a separate decision.

The Sturton Ward Neighbourhood Plan (the NP) is the adopted neighbourhood plan covering the location of the site. Three new neighbourhood areas have been designated to replace the Sturton Ward Neighbourhood Area, including North and [site address] . However, the evidence before me indicates that the development of a replacement neighbourhood plan is at an early stage and, consequently, is not a matter of any meaningful weight in my decision.

The site is situated within the Wheatley Conservation Area (the CA), and it contains two listed buildings: the [name] listed [site address] House and the [name] listed Pigeoncote and Outbuilding at [site address] . As a result, in making my decision, I have had special regard to sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

Planning permission for the replacement of two agricultural buildings and the erection of a detached garage was granted in November 20081. Condition 4 requires that development to be carried out only in accordance with the details, specifications and drawings submitted at that time.

The appellant sought to vary condition 4, proposing that solar photovoltaic panels be installed on the south-facing roof slope of the detached garage, but the Council refused the application2 for the reason given on the associated decision notice.

Consequently, the main issue is the effect that the proposal to vary condition 4 would have on the character or appearance of the CA and on the setting of the listed [site address] House and Pigeoncote and Outbuilding at [site address] .

The CA contains a cohesive collection of historic buildings which exhibit traditional design details and materials, with red brick and clay pantile roof tiles predominant. There is a significant amount of open land and green space within the CA too, and together with mature trees, hedges and grass verges, this provides it with a verdant character. Therefore, these aesthetics and design facets mean that much of the CA’s significance stems from its architectural interest. However, the likes of its historic barns and open land exude a strong rural character, serves as evidence of farming practices and traditional rural community, and this provides the CA with historic interest as well.

The separately listed [site address] House and Pigeoncote and Outbuilding at [site address] are positioned closely together within the appeal site. The former is a traditional farmhouse with red brickwork walls and a pantiled roof, reflective of the CA it forms a part of. It includes some ornate and traditional architectural features such as a dentillated eaves, sash windows and segmental heads. The Pigeoncote and Outbuilding similarly exhibits red brickwork, a pantiled roof and traditional design details, including those which provide visual evidence of its historical functions such as its louvred timber roof vents. Therefore, the significance of both listed buildings lies principally in their architectural and historic interest, arising from their traditional appearance and evidence of historic agrarian life. Mature, spacious gardens, open land and trees are all within the immediate surrounds to the listed buildings, and this pleasant setting contributes positively to their significance too.

Although a relatively recent addition to the site, the erected garage the solar panels are proposed upon adopts a traditional cart shed-like design, and its material composition includes pantiles to its roof, red brickwork and timber elements. Consequently, the garage is reflective of, and sympathetic to, that architectural and historic interest which underpins the significance of the CA and the aforementioned listed buildings.

The solar panels would conceal a considerable proportion of the garage’s south-facing roof slope pantiles. Their dark colouring would also be at odds with the reddish tones of the pantiles and brickwork used in the garage, which prevail in the CA, and which are characteristic of both the [site address] House and the 1 Planning permission reference 44/08/00004/ 2 Application reference 23/00728/[name] and Outbuilding at [site address] . Furthermore, although the garage is a detached outbuilding within a back-of-plot position, it is not within a secluded location. Instead, it is readily appreciable in views from [site address] , the adjacent tennis court and the access drive which serves the nearby playground and recreation area. It is also quite closely positioned to both of the site’s listed buildings, with little in the way of screening between them. This means that the solar panels would feature prominently in the area, and they would also be clearly seen in conjunction with the listed buildings – off-site, in locations around and off [site address] , but also from garden and driveway land within the site itself.

The proposal would be reversable – at some point they could be removed and the garage’s roofscape reinstated. However, I have no reason to conclude that, once installed, the solar panels would not be in situ for a considerable period of time. Therefore, the reversable nature of the proposal mitigates its effects only modestly.

For these reasons, the addition of the solar panels would amount to an unsympathetic development, one which would be harmful to, and would fail to preserve or enhance, the character and appearance of the CA, and which would detract from the setting and significance of the [site address] House and the Pigeoncote and Outbuilding at [site address] .

The level of harm which would arise to each of these designated heritage assets would be less than substantial and at the lower end of the scale. Even so, three designated heritage assets would be harmed. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out that great weight should be given to the conservation of heritage assets. Given this, and having regard to the relevant statutory duties I set out earlier, that designated heritage assets would be harmed is a matter of considerable importance and weight in my decision.

The Framework sets out that when such less than substantial harm would arise, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. Combating the effects of climate change is a public benefit, indeed, amongst the Framework’s policy concerning meeting the challenge of climate change it specifically advocates that significant weight be given to the need to support energy efficiency and low carbon heating improvements to existing buildings. Albeit, when designated heritage assets are involved, the Framework’s relevant heritage-related policies still apply.

The Framework states that any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset requires a clear and convincing justification. In addition, amongst its content, Historic England’s advice note3 advises that where heritage harm would arise from the likes of a renewable energy installation, the harm should be justified in a clear and convincing way with, as a part of this, a demonstration made in terms of what the meaningful improvements to energy and carbon efficiency performance would be.

In this case, any contribution towards combating climate change and to the site’s energy efficiency the proposal would make would amount to a public benefit. However, I have limited evidence before me on precisely how, and the extent to which, the proposal would improve the energy and carbon efficiency credentials of historic properties within the site or support their long-term viable use. It has not 3 Historic England’s Advice Note 18: [name] for Energy and [name] (February 2026) been clearly explained, and the justification for the heritage-related harm is unconvincing. Consequently, the proposal’s benefits are not sufficient to outweigh the harm which would be brought about to three designated heritage assets.

In reaching this view, I note the appellant’s submissions that the proposal is preferable to alternatives such as an installation on a listed building itself or to a ground mounted solution within the adjacent land which comprises a significant green gap, as designated by the NP. However, the extent of the exploration of alternative options presented to me is quite limited and, the demonstrations made in their respect are not sufficiently persuasive to lead me to conclude that the harm I have identified is justified and should be accepted on such grounds.

In conclusion on this main issue, the variation of condition 4 would result in harmful effects on the character and appearance of the CA and to the setting of the listed [site address] House and Pigeoncote and Outbuilding at [site address] . As a result, the proposal conflicts with Policies ST40 and ST33 of the Bassetlaw Local Plan 2020-2038. Together, in summary and amongst other matters, these Policies seek to ensure that proposals conserve and enhance the historic environment, make a positive contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment and are of a high quality of design that respects local context and positively preserves heritage assets. The proposal also conflicts with policy within the Framework, including that which sets out that heritage assets should be conserved in a manner appropriate to their significance, and that any harm to a designated heritage asset requires clear and convincing justification.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a number of solar panel developments in the local area, including those which are within the CA. During my site visit, I was able to view most of these developments. However, the case before me has distinct features - not least that the site contains listed buildings - that make its impacts with the cited cases not fully comparable. Moreover, I must determine the appeal on its own merits with regard to the evidence before me now. Consequently, the cited solar panel developments are a matter of limited weight in my decision.

The proposal to vary condition 4 would result in harmful effects on the character and appearance of the CA and to the setting and thereby significance of listed buildings. As a result, the proposal conflicts with policies within the development plan, and the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole. The material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.