Appeal 6007783

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the existing building and the surrounding locality, with special attention as to whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Badsworth Conservation Area (CA).

Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires a decision maker to give special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area in the determination of a planning application.

With regards to undertaking alterations, relevant policies of the Wakefield Local Plan (LP) includes Policy SP23 which sets a number of design principles, where applications are expected to reflect and enhance the local character and create a sense of place with distinctive character, respond to the local context in terms of scale, form, height, materials, fenestration, reducing carbon emissions, amongst others. Additionally, LP Policy LP63 relates to the historic environment and seeks that development should conserve and where possible, enhance the significance of a heritage asset, and ensuring that proposals conserve elements which contribute to significance, amongst others. LP Policy LP35 is specific to renewable energy generation which will be promoted, and that proposals should ensure they do not have an unacceptable impact upon the visual appearance and character of an area, as well as heritage assets, amongst others.

Whilst a [name] has not been submitted with the appeal, from my initial views of the CA including responses from both parties; the significance of the CA appears to be related to the historic core and associated development of the village which Appeal Decision: 6007783 appears to have medieval origins from the presence of [name]. [name] which acts as a focal point to the northern area of the settlement. The historic core of the Village appears to have been associated with the [address] and [site address] which run roughly parallel to each other before meeting at the junction with [address] and [address]. Many of the dwellings appear to be associated with agricultural foundations, and have a functional appearance, with some farm buildings like former barns having no setback from the road edge whilst larger houses are setback and have more ornament in their design. The overriding materials are mainly of which are constructed in local vernacular with coursed limestone for dwellings and boundary walls, with authenticity gained from red pantile roof tiles with large chimney stacks, timber casement windows, and timber doors. [name] is more direct, [site address] meanders before joining [address]. Both streets have variances in topography, the roads are rather narrow with slow moving vehicles and a feeling of tranquillity and rural experience. There is also a dominant characteristic of vegetation from large mature trees, front gardens and gaps in and around buildings to tops of trees in rear gardens. Given the topography there are also glimpses to countryside beyond which reinforces the rural relationship with the settlement. The continued use of traditional and authentic materials, designs and their relationship to the historic form and function of buildings is also a key component of the significance of the CA. These are some of the positive aspects of the CA that contribute to the significance of the CA.

Whilst there have been some alterations and extensions undertaken to the CA, many are sympathetic to the significance of the CA. There is also new infill development, amongst the historic buildings which are generally read as new buildings. There are other features such as uPVC windows and doors, and concrete roof tiles which are negative features that do detract from the historic quality and authenticity of buildings within the CA. For historic buildings there are currently no cluttered or largely extended roof forms with dormers etc.

The appeal site comprises of a two storey building that is located at the Southern terminus of [address] and [address] with the building acting as a gateway entrance to the CA. Given the positioning of the building with little setback to the road edge, and the infill development surrounding, the building appears to have been once isolated from the main built up components of the village. It would appear to have historic farming origins, with the chimney and deeper window reveals of the taller two storey component closer to the intersection appearing to be the oldest part of the building. The building has been extended and altered over time and now has a more domestic appearance which is two storeys along [site address] and [address]. Whilst the dwelling appears to be largely modified and domesticated in its appearance, it still maintains a functional domestic rural style which at this prominent junction does contribute to the character and appearance of the CA. Elements such as uPVC windows and doors and concrete roof tiles do detract from the overall appearance of the dwelling, particularly at this prominent junction.

The proposed 17 panels would be placed on the southern roof plane, and despite being black in colour, would sit proud of the roof tiles. [name] appreciate that the roof tiles are not original, the panels would add excessive clutter to the roof, which detracts from the positive qualities which contribute to the significance of the CA at this very prominent junction. Given the number of detrimental elements already on the building, the further application of clutter to the roof plane would further Appeal Decision: 6007783 accentuate negative elements and detract from the local distinctiveness and significance of the CA.

I appreciate explanations in the [name] of Case as to the reasoning for the solar panels on the southern roof slope, which would be the most appropriate when considering energy generation and associated payback and why the reduction in panels or the placement on other roof planes would be inappropriate. I can also appreciate that care has been taken to select black solar panels which, although not flush with the roof, attempts have been made at trying to blend the material with the existing roof tile. The letter supplied by the solar installer1 as to justify viability is not a full viability appraisal that assesses how the property would be utilised and the resultant need for renewable energy sources. I accept that this installer will have evidence from past installations to know typical need, and is a consideration to be undertaken in the determination. What is not explained in the appeal is whether other options of renewable energy generation or installations that improve thermal efficiency have been explored, some of which may offset a reduction in panels or completely negate their need to achieve similar carbon reduction.

I acknowledge that there are examples2 of solar panel installation within the CA, however this illustrates that there isn’t a blanket approach, but applications are site specific and decided upon their merits. Whilst all of these installations are within the CA, they are on newer buildings which have a different contribution towards the significance of the CA, and are not on prominent locations such as the appeal site.

Consequently, I disagree that the proposed solar panels would maintain the character and appearance of the house or have a neutral effect upon the existing building as the installation does materially affect the external appearance of the building. The proposal would increase the visual clutter of the roof planes and would have a harmful effect on the significance of the CA. In conclusion of this matter, it is clear to me that the proposal would unacceptably harm the appearance of the appeal building and the character and appearance of the locality, thus failing to preserve the character and appearance of the wider CA. The proposed scheme would therefore conflict with LP policies LP56, SP23, LP35 and LP63 as described previously.

Although serious, the harm to the CA would be ‘less than substantial,’ within the meaning of the term in paragraph 215 of the Framework. Paragraph 213 of the Framework states that any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset requires clear and convincing justification. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires that, where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm, the harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. I note discussion in the [name] where there has been a “lower end” level applied to the assessment of Paragraph 215. It is noted that this spectrum classification of less than substantial harm is unnecessary and goes beyond the remit of the Framework which is also addressed through caselaw3, hence these spectrum levels are not appropriate to give weight to in my decision.

Turning to the assessment under paragraph 215 of the Framework, there are some public benefits where the Appellant has suggested environmental benefits arising 1 Letter written by [name], Save with Solar, undated 2 No.s 2 [address] Fold; 12 [address] Meadow, 2a [address] Meadow; [address] 3 Shimbles, R (on the application of) v City of Bradford Metropolitan District Council EWHC 195 (Admin) Appeal Decision: 6007783 from the renewable energy generation and carbon savings. I have not been presented with substantive evidence to suggest that the solar panels are the only option available and whether similar or more environmental benefits could also be achieved. There are also short term economic benefits from the short term employment of labourers in the installation of the solar panels. Whilst the panels may also be reversible, they are a relatively permanent installation, with many solar panels having a lifespan of 25-30 years. However, these benefits are not unique to this particular scheme or to solar panels, and as discussed, there may be other, more acceptable ways in which these same public benefits could be achieved which are more appropriate to the policies of the development plan. Given the circumstances and evidence provided, both of these benefits would have low weight.

I therefore find that the public benefits arising from the proposed development would not outweigh the harm I have identified. The scheme therefore conflicts with the Framework, which directs, at paragraph 212, ‘that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation ... irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to their significance.’

In conclusion of this matter the scheme fails to preserve the character and appearance of the wider CA and the duty under s72 of the PLBCA. The proposed scheme would therefore conflict with Paragraphs 212 and 216 of the Framework, and additionally would be contrary to [name] LP56, SP23, LP35 and LP63 as described previously.

For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.