Appeal 6004167

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for replacement entrance gates at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/04033, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 8251 LH4-SL01 (Site Location Plan), 8251 LH4-L01 (Site Plan), 8251 LH4-S01 ([name]) and 8251 LH4-P01 ([name]).

The replacement gates hereby permitted shall not be installed until details of their materials and finishes have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The appeal is allowed and listed building consent is granted for replacement entrance gates at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: DC/25/04034 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The works hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. Appeal Decisions 6004166 and 6004167

The replacement gates hereby permitted shall not be installed until details of their materials and finishes have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The works shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The appeals relate to entrance gates to an access serving buildings within the historic estate of [site address] which is a [name] listed building (as ‘[name]). For the purposes of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (‘the Act’), a listed building also includes any structure that is within its curtilage which has existed since before 1st July 1948. From the evidence before me, the existing gates are relatively modern but the relationship of the boundary wall and other buildings on the appeal site to [name] means that these should be treated as listed and I have determined the appeals on that basis. The site is additionally within the Lavenham Conservation Area (‘the CA’), and there are other listed buildings in the vicinity including the [name] listed Church of [name] and [name].

As the proposal relates to a listed building which is located within the [name] and near to other listed buildings, I have been mindful of the duties at sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Act.

The main issues in both appeals are the effect of the proposal on (i) the special interest of the [name] listed building, [name], and (ii) the character and appearance of the [name].

The present Hall is located to the west of an earlier medieval manor and comprises a substantial timber-framed and plastered building dating to the 16th/17th centuries with considerable 18th century alterations.

The listed building sits within extensive grounds including substantial landscaped gardens with a pond. Also within the grounds are a cluster of traditional agricultural buildings around a courtyard accessed from [address]. This cluster includes a late 19th century brick and pantile roof stable range along the southern side of the courtyard which I understand had previously been part converted to studios and ancillary accommodation and which was undergoing further work at the time of my visit to provide a separate dwelling1 (‘the [name]). To the other side of the courtyard is a low brick and flint range with a pantile roof which is to become garages/studios for the new dwelling, and various barns. Low metal gates set between sections of brick and flint walls mark the access to the courtyard.

Insofar as it relates to these appeals, I find that the special interest of [name] is primarily associated with the historic and architectural value of the principal building and the legibility of its relationship with its extensive grounds and wider complex of associated structures which historically formed the centre of a large agricultural estate. Despite the ongoing alterations to some of the structures on the appeal site to provide a separate dwelling, the sections of retained fabric and architectural detailing inform an understanding of their historic function, ancillary 1 Application refs DC/24/03083 and DC/24/03084 Appeal Decisions 6004166 and 6004167 status and relationship with [site address] and so the legibility of the complex. The site accordingly contributes to the special interest of the listed building.

The Lavenham CA is focused around the historic core of the village which was a significant producer of cloth prior to the decline of the industry at the end of the 16th century. It includes numerous timber-framed buildings, as well as the Church of [name] and [name] which the Lavenham Conservation Area Appraisal 2010 notes reflects Lavenham’s former wealth. There is a generally fairly tight pattern to development within the village core, but the outskirts have a looser grain which together with the surrounding open countryside provides for a more rural and agrarian character.

The quality of the historic buildings and features, the use of vernacular materials and the form and pattern of the village are all elements that contribute positively to the character, appearance and historic interest of the CA.

I have found above that the appeal site contributes to the special interest of [name] which is one of the historic buildings within the CA. It also adds to the agrarian quality of this edge of the CA, reinforcing the historic context for the village as a rural settlement. In my assessment, it consequently makes a positive contribution to the character, appearance and thus the significance of the CA.

The proposal would replace the gates to the access to the courtyard from [address]. The Council notes that the existing gates are a modern addition and in a state of disrepair. It does not oppose the principle of their replacement, which it comments could be a benefit to the locality. Based on my observations and the evidence before me, I agree.

The replacement gates would comprise horizontal timber slats set within metal frames. Gaps between slats could allow some glimpses into the site, but the gates would undoubtedly have a far more solid appearance than the current open metalwork. Together with their increased height relative to the existing gates, this would reduce the availability of views into the courtyard.

However, current views of buildings other than the [name] are largely limited to their upper sections and roofs and these views would not be notably reduced. There would be greater screening of the [name], but this would predominantly be to the lower part of the building while views of the pantile roof above would not be significantly reduced. Furthermore, I saw that extensive, modern glazing has been installed to the lower part of the building within sections of wall which it appears from photographs in the appellant’s July 2024 Heritage Statement2 sit forward of the front walls and doors to the former stables.

Despite the greater screening to the lower part of the building, there would not therefore be a meaningful reduction in opportunities to appreciate the historic form and fabric of the [name]. The form, height and materials of the roof would remain clearly appreciable and would continue to mark this as a former ancillary working building and to contribute to the varied roofscape of the courtyard cluster. In addition, the gates would be higher than those currently at the site, but they would still be of comparatively modest height so that there would remain a perception of the open yard to the front of the [name] and the general layout of the courtyard cluster would remain legible. 2 in respect of the conversion of buildings to residential use under application refs DC/24/03083 and DC/24/03084 Appeal Decisions 6004166 and 6004167

Given these factors, I find that opportunities to appreciate and understand the courtyard arrangement, the curtilage-listed former farm buildings and their historic relationship to [site address] would not be meaningfully diminished. In fact, the greater screening of the lower part of the [name] which now includes extensive glazing associated with its conversion to residential use would be likely to reduce the perception of this as comprising a separate dwelling rather than a building forming part of the estate of [site address] as it has historically comprised. On that basis, I find that the contribution that development on the appeal site makes to the special interest of the listed building and to the character and appearance of the CA would not be harmed.

Furthermore, the simple agrarian design and muted materials of the gates would result in an understated and unobtrusive appearance that I consider befitting of the site’s historic agricultural context. They would also be no taller than the adjoining section of wall to the south, and I saw other boundary treatments including walls and gates of some height to other buildings within this part of the CA such that there would not be an unusual degree of enclosure. I am accordingly satisfied that the gates would be appropriately sympathetic to their context and would not detract from the character or the appearance of the CA or the wider countryside.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would preserve the setting and special interest of the [name] listed building, [name]. The character and the appearance of the [name] would similarly be preserved. This would satisfy the requirements of the Act and the Framework.

The proposal would also accord with Policies LP19 and LP24 of the Babergh and Mid Suffolk Joint Local Plan 2023 and Policies D1 and D2 of the Lavenham Neighbourhood Plan 2016 insofar as they broadly seek, amongst other things, high quality design that safeguards historic assets, the preservation, enhancement or conservation of heritage assets and their significance, and the preservation and enhancement of Lavenham’s distinctive character. As a result, I find that the Appeal A proposal would be in accordance with the development plan when it is read as a whole.

The Council’s evidence refers to potential harm to the [name] listed building, the Church of [name] and [name]. However, there is no specific discussion of how the proposal would affect the setting or significance of this or any other listed building in the vicinity of the appeal site. Nor do the reasons for refusal allege harm to any listed buildings other than [name].

The listing description indicates that the Church was mainly built during the 15th to 16th centuries; the period of Lavenham’s greatest prosperity as a wool town. It is richly ornamented and includes a tall tower with clasping buttresses which is a highly prominent feature in the surrounding area.

Insofar as it relates to the current proposal, I consider the contribution made to the special interest of the Church by its setting to be primarily associated with its relationship with the generally rural surroundings on the outskirts of the village which reflect its historic position and context. The former agricultural buildings on the appeal site are part of the rural character of the area and in that regard, would make some contribution to the special interest of the listed building. Appeal Decisions 6004166 and 6004167

I have found above that the proposal would preserve the special interest of [name] and the character and the appearance of the CA. For the same reasons, I am satisfied that the rural quality of the wider setting to the Church would not be adversely affected and I do not identify harm to the special interest or significance of nearby listed buildings through the development within their wider setting.

In addition to standard conditions specifying the time limit, I have imposed a condition in respect of Appeal A specifying the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty. This is unnecessary in Appeal B, as the decision incorporates the plans.

Although not suggested by the Council, I have imposed further conditions on each appeal to require details of the precise finishes of the gates. I consider this is necessary for clarity and certainty given that the appellant’s evidence refers to differing options of rosewood or black finish; and in the interests of preserving the special interest of the listed building and the character and appearance of the CA. The appellant has agreed to these conditions.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeals should be allowed.