Appeal 6007740

The appeal is dismissed.

The description in the banner heading has been taken from the original application form. The appellant’s submission confirms that amended plans were submitted during the determination of the application which introduced additional alterations to the wall. Although no revised description was formally agreed in writing, the appellant confirms the submitted amendments effectively altered the description of development to include these additional works.

The Council’s decision notice describes the development as “Formation of new vehicular access including alterations to wall”. As this accurately reflects the development before me and is agreed by the appellant to align with the amended plans, I have used this description for the purposes of determining the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Bowes Conservation Area.

The appeal site lies within the Bowes Conservation Area (the CA), which encompasses the historic village of Bowes and its principal approaches. Accordingly, I have had special regard to the statutory duty under section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA.

The CA’s significance derives from its strong rural character, historic layout and the linear pattern of development unified by the consistent use of local stone in both buildings and boundary treatments. This forms an important component of the CA’s overall significance, particularly at key entry points.

The appeal site forms part of one such approach, where the continuity, alignment and visual presence of the roadside wall reinforce the village’s historic identity and its relationship with the surrounding landscape. The existing dry-stone boundary wall is a prominent and established feature, making a meaningful contribution to the significance of the CA.

The proposal would introduce a new access requiring the partial demolition, realignment and reconstruction of a notable length of the wall to achieve visibility splays. Although the proposed rebuild would use salvaged materials and follow a broadly similar alignment, the works would nevertheless alter its established position, continuity and appearance. In this prominent location, such changes would be perceptible in both immediate and wider views when approaching and leaving the village, thereby diminishing its contribution to the character, appearance and significance of the CA.

The appellant places weight on the suggestion that sections of the wall have been rebuilt in the past, and that this reduces its significance and the sensitivity of the proposed works. However, the evidence before me is limited and does not convincingly establish the extent, timing or implications of any such rebuilding. In any event, the wall as it presently exists continues to make a clear and positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA. Based on the available evidence, the possibility of past alteration does not materially diminish its current significance.

At the time of my visit, sections of the wall were partially screened by vegetation within the roadside verge. However, such vegetation is subject to change over time and does not detract from the permanence of the wall as a defining structural feature within the CA, nor from its overall contribution to significance.

For these reasons, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area and that of the CA, failing to preserve or enhance its significance. Although that harm would be at the lower end of the spectrum of less than substantial, it nevertheless attracts considerable importance and weight in accordance with paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

In such circumstances, paragraph 215 of the Framework directs that harm must be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. There is no dispute between the main parties that the proposal would not give rise to harm in respect of matters such as highway safety. However, the absence of harm in these respects is a neutral consideration rather than a positive benefit. The appellant identifies benefits including the provision of a safe and independent access to the site, the facilitation of its continued lawful use, and the potential to enable future redevelopment of the wider site.

Whilst these benefits are material considerations, they are largely generalised and relate mainly to the site’s potential future use or redevelopment rather than to any specific or deliverable proposal. There is no extant permission or current application that the access would directly enable, and the reliance on development constrained by nutrient neutrality adds further uncertainty as to the form, timing and deliverability of any future scheme. In these circumstances, only limited weight can be attached to the benefits in the planning balance.

Taking these matters together, I conclude that the identified public benefits, whilst material, are limited in weight and do not outweigh the identified harm to the significance of the CA. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with Policies 6, 29 and 44 of the County Durham Plan, adopted 2020, which collectively seek to ensure that development is appropriately located and designed so that it respects, preserves and where possible enhances the character, appearance and significance of designated heritage assets and their setting. It would also conflict with the relevant provisions of the Framework, the aims of which have previously been set out.

The proposed development would conflict with the development plan and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, to indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with the plan. For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.