8 C O N T E X T 1 2 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 2 out to the house, as it was possible to include changes to the farmhouse only where it was provable beyond doubt that the accused had carried out the alterations without listed building consent, either through his own admission at the two PACE interviews carried out in March and May 2009, through his own written rebuttals to changes itemised by the Conservation Department, or through the opportunity to compare photographs taken from the BEAMS report with those taken on an audit of the house in June 2008. The 15 offences represent a large array of damaging changes but by no means constitute a definitive list. The June audit resulted in an initial catalogue of 137 items. For example, alterations to window and door furniture were thought to be more extensive than reflected in the offences. The enforcement team requested the owner to submit a full schedule of the works that had been carried out, but failed to do so – hence the symbolic nature of the latch. Apart from the quantum of works carried out, the case raises two key issues that are, to some extent, somewhat at odds with each other. There were numerous concerns that the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) would not provide the same protection to heritage assets as had been the case with PPG 15 (the owner himself expected to get a better deal from the new legislation). The council responded to the Planning Inspectorate’s case-worker’s request seeking any additional comments in the light of the introduction of the NPPF (which came into force in March 2012) as follows: Notwithstanding paragraph 214 which states:‘For 12 months from the day of publication, decision-takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this Framework’, the present new NPPF would appear to support further the local authority’s case. Para 126:‘Local planning authorities should set out in their local plan a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. In doing so, they should recognise that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource and conserve them in a manner appropriate to their significance.’ This paragraph makes the important reference to fact that heritage assets are irreplaceable – echoed in the Historic Environment section of our emerging local development framework. Para 128: ‘In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected.’This refers to the failure by the applicant to recognise the importance of the heritage asset and instead to focus on the ‘merits’ of removing historic fabric, replacing it with unsuitable interventions or obscuring it with unsuitable materials. Para 129: ‘Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal ...taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise.’ The local authority has done all in its power to demonstrate the significance of the assets affected. However, it should be recognised that the appeals deal with heritage assets that had already been destroyed or obliterated by the applicant, with insufficient record being made. Through the successful court case, the Exposing the brickwork detracts from the architectural integrity of the spaces. The inspector concluded that the removal of partitions confused the historic layout. The attic conversion with inserted rooflight, inappropriate stair and plasterboarded throughout
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=