44 CONTEXT 178 : DECEMBER 2023 is important is the status given to an NDHA and its importance in its own right, as well as part of a group and of the street scene. The emphasis on retaining, reusing and adapting the building is further highlighted in the subsequent paragraphs of the decision, relating to the UK’s transition to a zerocarbon economy; noting that the inspector acknowledged that the carbon emissions would be much greater for demolishing a building than refurbishing. The secretary of state stated that where a building is structurally sound and in a location of the highest accessibility, strong reason would need to be demonstrated for demolition and redevelopment. Stonehenge tunnel Transport secretary Mark Harper has confirmed a development consent order that was granted for a revised scheme to widen roads and excavate a two-mile tunnel near the Unesco world heritage site of Stonehenge (Application for the Proposed A303 Amesbury to Berwick Down Development Consent Order [Planning Act 2008]). A tunnel scheme to reduce the negative impact of the A303 on Stonehenge was first announced in 2014. This would allow for the restoration of the integrity of the ancient site. The submitted scheme in 2018 was not supported by the planning inspector or the local and heritage communities, but in 2020 the then transport secretary Grant Shapps approved the initial scheme against the planning inspector’s recommendation. This 2020 decision was quashed by the high court in 2021 on the basis that the decision had not considered the impacts of the proposed development on the significance of all relevant heritage assets, and had failed to take into account the relevant merits of potential alternative tunnel options compared to the proposed western cutting and portals. In 2021 Unesco confirmed that Stonehenge could be stripped of its world heritage status, on the basis that a road tunnel would irreversibly damage an area of ‘outstanding universal value’. Unesco recommended that the site should be placed on the list of world heritage in danger unless significant changes to planned renovations occurred. Following the quashing order, the Department for Transport and National Highways (formerly Highways England) looked into the alternative options, and new consultations with interested parties commenced. In approving the scheme in July 2023, Mark Harper stated that he was ‘satisfied there is a clear need’ for the new tunnel. The project’s ‘harm on spatial, visual relations and settings is less than substantial, and should be weighed against the public benefits,’ he explained. Following on his decision to grant a new development consent order, a second high court challenge was issued in August 2023. Court of appeal In 2021 planning permission for the subdivision of a semi-detached dwelling house in a residential street in the London suburb of Northwood was dismissed by a planning inspector as it would harm the character and appearance of the area. The appeal judge in the high court considered that this conclusion was irrational and allowed the development, quashing the decision and granting planning permission in 2022. The court of appeal has now concluded that the planning inspector’s decision had been logical, coherent, properly reasoned, and sufficient to discharge his statutory obligations in relation to s70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and s38(6) of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004 (Kazalbash v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the London Borough of Hillingdon Council [2023] EWCA Civ 904). In coming to this conclusion, the court of appeal judge considered that the planning inspector had assessed the scheme against the relevant local plan policies with reference to the prevailing pattern of development in the area. This included strong building lines, consistent setback from the road, and similar plot sizes and widths, creating a pleasant rhythm in the street scene which contributed positively to the character and appearance of the area. There would be no change to the external fabric of the building; a new house would be created by dividing the rear garden into two with a fence, and using the existing side extension as a separate house. The inspector had noted that while the setback of the extension may have helped it to appear subservient when constructed as an extension, as a separate dwelling it would appear incongruous, harming the character and appearance of the area. The judge in the court of appeal stated that the inspector’s decision could not be faulted in law and was legally impeccable, and the appeal was allowed. Although this site was not in a conservation area, the court of appeal judge analysed the application of the phrase ‘character and appearance of the area’. He stated that ‘the task the inspector set himself was to exercise his own planning judgement in assessing “the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area”.’ The judge stated that the inspector was not using this expression as if it equated to the statutory concept of ‘character or appearance’ in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=