Appeal 6004243

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider the main issue to be the effect of proposal on the appearance of the Langham Conservation Area.

The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 imposes duties requiring special regard to be had to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a Conservation Area.

The National Planning Policy Framework advises that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

The appeal site lies within the Langham Conservation Area, a designated heritage asset. The character of this Conservation Area is primarily that of a traditional village with dwellings of predominately traditional design.

The proposal would replace the existing leylandii hedging to the side of the appeal property with a timber featheredge close board fence and gravel board some 2.1 metres in height alongside an existing footpath. The character along this part of the footpath is of a rural footpath with a mix of boundary treatments. On this side of the footpath, it is predominately hedging. On the opposite side, there is a variety of boundary treatments, some of which is in a state of disrepair. Despite the disrepair, the appearance of the footpath is one of a rural verdant route and as such the leylandii hedge makes a positive contribution to the appearance of this part of the Conservation Area.

In reaching my conclusion, I have had regard to all matters raised, including examples of other boundary treatments in the surrounding area. From my observations, due to the prominent siting of the proposed fence adjacent to a public footpath, together with the domestic design, height and length of the fence and stark materials, it would create an unacceptable hard landscaped domestic boundary along a substantial part of the rural footpath. This would be to the detriment of the surrounding area, not preserving the appearance of the Conservation Area, but this would be less than substantial harm as set out in the Framework.

Where a proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the Framework states that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

I note that the proposed fence would provide immediate privacy and security and note the current condition of the hedge. The proposed fence would not create the encroachment of branches and roots into the footpath that can be caused by hedging. In addition, it would provide a level of protection against inclement weather along the footpath. I have attributed some weight to these matters, which would provide some public benefit.

I understand that the property is home to children and a young adult with intellectual disabilities and autism and the fence would provide essential security. This is a material consideration. Nevertheless, the proposal is not the only way to achieve the necessary protection. Therefore, I have attributed limited weight to this matter.

I have attributed considerable importance and weight to the duty and the presumptive desirability of preserving the appearance of the Conservation Area. On balance, in my opinion, the harm to the appearance of the area would not be outweighed by any public benefits.

For the above reasons, the proposal would be contrary to Policies CS19 and CS22 in the Rutland Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2011), Policies SP15 and SP20 in the Rutland Site Allocations and Policies Development Plan Document (2014) and Policies BD1 and CH1 in the Langham Neighbourhood Plan 2016-2036 (2017), particularly where they seek high standards of design and seek to preserve the appearance of conservation areas. In addition, the proposal would be contrary to the Framework where the Framework seeks to conserve heritage assets. The above policies are broadly in accordance with the Framework on this matter.