Planning Appeals Involving Heritage Assets
Planning appeals are essentially a process an applicant can take if they disagree with a refused planning decision, a condition added to a granted permission or if the Local Planning Authority (LPA) has not given a decision within the appropriate timeframe. Planning appeals are dealt with by the Planning Inspectorate, an independent government agency which has been set up to deal with planning appeals and related matters.
There are three appeal procedures: written representations, a hearing or an inquiry.
The most common type of appeal is written representation which is the method most appropriate where the key planning considerations can be clearly understood from the submitted application and appeal documents. Essentially these are all submitted in writing for the inspector to review and made and decision.
Should the issue be more complex and where the inspector may need to question parties on some of the key planning issues, the appeal may be more appropriate as a hearing (which is held in person).
The most formal and complex type of appeal is an inquiry, which again is held in person. In these the main parties are normally represented by an advocate (such as a barrister or solicitor). Both written and oral evidence is provided and there is an opportunity for the expert witnesses, such as specialist officers (i.e. Heritage, Ecology, Landscape) to be cross examined.
As can be expected, the level of involvement required from the specialist officers is very much dependent on the type of appeal. In respect of the written representation, if we are unable to support an application on heritage grounds, we typically include the heritage planning considerations in our initial response at application stage. Therefore, when a written representation appeal is received it is just a case of reviewing the submitted appeal documents to make sure no new information has been submitted as part of the appeal which may impact the initial heritage assessment. If there is, then of course we would provide a further written response.
For hearings, it is the same as written representation that we check to see if any new information has been submitted. If the reason for the application’s refusal included heritage matters than we may also be asked to attend the hearing to answer questions from the inspector.
As with the other two types of appeals, our involvement in an inquiry is reliant on if heritage formed part of the reason for refusal. If so, then as the specialist officers we are required to contribute to the process before the inquiry and attend as expert witnesses. Before the inquiry there is an exchange of several documents, such as a Full Statement of Case, Statement of Common Ground and Proof of Evidence from the expert witnesses.
Below are a few notable case studies where planning appeals involved heritage assets.
Written Representations
Appeal Ref: APP/K0425/W/23/3326033
The development proposed was for the demolition of the existing farmhouse, to be replaced with a new single storey dwelling – The application reference is 22/07370/FUL.
The farmhouse and other surrounding buildings had been identified as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA) and as such included on the council’s Local Heritage List. As the development proposal would result in the total loss of the main building, the inspector agreed with the Heritage Officer that the demolition of the farmhouse would result in substantial harm to this NDHA. The Framework states that in weighing applications that affect a NDHA, a balanced judgment will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the asset.
https://local-heritage-list.org.uk/buckinghamshire/asset/12754
Monkton Farm House and outbuildings
Appeal Ref: APP/N0410/Y/3333214
The works proposed included adding further windows to the property, amongst other elements which were considered acceptable – The application reference is PL/23/2411/HB.
The appeal property forms part of a larger building and is Grade II Listed. The Heritage Officer’s objection was of the two proposed first floor windows to serve two existing bathrooms which currently have no windows. The inspector agreed with the Heritage Officer that this work would have an adverse effect on the integrity and special interest of the listed building.
The appeal was dismissed.
Front facade of 35A Chalk Stream House, Amersham
Hearing
Appeal Ref: APP/N0410/W/22/3291352
The development proposed was an extension and change of use of The Priory from B1 (a) office to C2 use to provide a 75-bedroom C2 care home, with associated car parking and landscaping – The application references are PL/20/3527/FA and PL/20/3528/HB.
Part of the appeal property is a Grade II Listed, with a later modern extension. The entire site is within the Burnham Conservation Area. The proposal included a further extension to the exiting modern extension.
The Heritage Officer stated that due to the scale, design and position of the proposed extension it would have an adverse impact on the setting of the listed building and the character and appearance of the conservation area.
During the hearing the Heritage Officer was cross examined by the inspector and attended the site visit.
Whilst the inspector agreed the extension would harm the setting of the listed building, and nor would it preserve the spatial character of the conservation area, they found heritage benefits from the overall scheme to outweigh this harm. Such as securing the future use of the listed building and landscape improvement.
The Priory, Burham - The listed building to the left, and set back the existing modern extension
Inquiry
Appeal Ref: APP/N0410/C/23/3336002
This appeal was against an enforcement notice, which was issued for the unauthorised change of use of the site. Its lawful use being agricultural, but its change of use included storage of various industrial materials, vehicle breaking and repairs and preparation of concrete mix.
The Heritage Officer found that the unlawful use of the site resulted in an adverse impact to the setting of several surrounding heritage assets, including listed buildings and a conservation area. This recommendation was provided as a Proof of Evidence prior to the inquiry. In this instance, the inspector nor the appellant’s (applicant) representatives wanted to cross examine the Heritage Officer.
In his final decision the inspector agreed that the development that had taken place on the appeal site failed to preserve the setting of the listed buildings and conservation area.
The appeal was dismissed, on grounds including the harm to these heritage assets.
Drone image of appeal site in Dorney
Across the Buckinghamshire Council for 2022/2023 there were 733 (12%) refused applications and of those 225 were appealed, with 173 of those appeals dismissed which is a 68.4% success rate. With each appeal, regardless of the type, the council must fund the defence, along with diverting the officer time from processing planning applications. As such, the aim wherever possible is for the council to resolve outstanding issues with as many planning applications as possible. However, the appeal decisions from the inspectorate are typically a good resource in strengthening knowledge and understanding of the planning process – especially in heritage terms.
Resources
- Buckinghamshire Council, view planning applications - View a planning application | Buckinghamshire Council
- Planning Inspectorate, search for a case - Planning Inspectorate