C O N T E X T 1 2 6 : S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 2 9 significance of the heritage assets affected was demonstrated by the failure of the applicant to apply for listed building consent for each of the items included in the various appeals and by the acceptance in most cases by the applicant’s own expert witness that ‘harm’ had been caused. Para 132: ‘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... Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset ...As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.’ This paragraph is also supportive of the council’s case. In this case, it can be said that by destroying the historic fabric without listed building consent, no weight was given by the applicant to its conservation, and no clear or convincing justification was put forward for destroying it. The inspector decided to judge the three appeals solely on the NPPF: ‘I have been referred to Planning Policy Statement 5, Planning for the Historic Environment. However, it has since been replaced by the framework and I have considered the appeal in the context of current national planning policy.’ The NPPF therefore provided some strong support for the council’s case, the inspector concluding that: ‘The modest, vernacular appearance and detailing of the farm house is central to its special architectural and historic interest. Many features and elements contribute to this special interest from the plain, humble fixtures such as the door furniture, to the plan form, layout and function of the various spaces within the building. Taken cumulatively, the works that have been executed detract from this special interest and have caused substantial harm to the heritage asset.’ As this makes clear, historic fabric had not been destroyed through neglect or ignorance of its importance. It was carried out in spite of the owner himself having commissioned a thorough report on the significance of the farmhouse. The unfortunate – and often overlooked – impact of overzealous investment in ‘upgrading’ a listed building has been the underlying problem. To be fair, the process of ‘gentrification’ had already begun a decade or so before the present owner acquired the farmhouse in 1997. In 1989 the house had been sold off from the estate of which it had been a part for over 200 years with approximately five acres of land (in 1840 it had 174 acres attached to it.) Almost immediately, permission was granted to turn the former stables and outbuilding adjacent to the farmhouse into a dwelling, and a separate barn was hived off and also converted. The remaining five acres offered opportunities for a small equestrian estate, with the consequent knock-on effect of hobby-farming practices on the curtilage landscape immediately around the farmhouse. The present owner has continued the process by further converting another set of stables to guest accommodation and offices adjacent to the house, enlarging outbuildings created in 1991 and creating a swimming pool to replace the former modest garden pond. This is apart from the half a million pounds spent on the house itself. Gentrification is often a slow, insidious process where the arguments and action that can be brought to bear on those owners who chose to ignore historic buildings legislation are far less clear-cut than in cases of total neglect. Changes and alterations are usually difficult to detect, and the lack of any proper recording means there is often no baseline evidence against which to assess where such changes have occurred. There are also more subtle ramifications.Wealthy owners are usually better at manipulating support. In the present case, MPs and councillors were lobbied (unsuccessfully) in an attempt to ‘expose’ the fact that the conservation department was ‘mismanaged and employed people of such low intelligence’. The real challenge is the inordinate amount of time spent in putting together the evidence, assessing poorly constructed retrospective planning permissions, fighting subsequent appeals and then applying and implementing any enforcement actions. Major efforts are currently being made to tackle historic buildings at risk. By definition, these tend to be structures which have been abandoned or badly neglected. It should surely be of equal concern that the process of over-gentrification may also be inflicting significant harm on heritage assets – particularly in the present economic climate where owners are staying put, investing substantially in existing buildings rather than in new build. The NPPF would appear to provide the clarity that has been needed to combat the type of incremental harm that sometimes flows from misguided applications of this approach. It will be a tragedy if depleting conservation resources make it impossible to apply. James Moir is lead conservation officer with Dacorum Borough Council. The parlour before and after the change of chimneypiece
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=