10 CONTEXT 182 : DECEMBER 2024 maker’s exercise of planning judgement, it did include an interesting discussion on both the World Heritage Convention and the World Heritage Committee. Case law: departing from officer recommendations Tesco Stores Limited v Reigate and Banstead Borough Council [2024] EWHC 2327 (Admin.) Tesco Stores challenged a grant of planning permission for a Lidl store on the basis that (1) the council failed to comply with Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to give great weight to the preservation of the setting of a Grade II-listed building, and that (2) no adequate reasons were given in terms of the public benefits that should outweigh the harm of the proposed development. Although the claim was dismissed by Judge James Strachan KC, this decision provides a good summary of the main legal principles of Section 66 of the act and the appropriate standard of reasons if a committee departs from a council’s officers’ recommendation. Fines for breach of condition (No citation information available) In September 2024, a company and its director were prosecuted for failing to comply with two breach of condition notices secured by Telford and Wrekin Council, concerning work carried out on a Grade II-listed building within a Unesco World Heritage Site. Telford Magistrates Court ordered Millenium Enterprises, and its sole director Amratpal Singh, to pay £76,120 in fines and court costs after the company failed to comply with planning conditions aimed at protecting the architectural and historical significance of a listed pub. In 2014 and 2015, permission and consent were granted for works to convert the former Crown Inn to apartments, alongside the construction of additional dwellings on adjacent land within the Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site. The world heritage site is described by Unesco as being ‘known throughout the world as the symbol of the industrial revolution’. In 2020, a breach of condition notice was served on the basis that the developer did not submit samples of material prior to the commencement of works, did not undertake works in accordance with the approved drawings, and that landscape details had been breached. Telford Magistrates Court identified that such breaches would create a significant precedent for future developments, in this world heritage site and others. The fines were imposed to ensure that developers understood that non-compliance of planning conditions within a sensitive and historically significant area, a world heritage site, was seriously damaging and that adherence to imposed planning conditions was essential to safeguard Telford’s heritage. Planning appeals Rebuilding a non-designated heritage asset (Ref 3343408) This appeal related to the reconstruction of an altered farmhouse dating back to the 18th century. The proposal intended to reuse as much of the existing materials as possible but it would also result in the loss of traditionally laid stonework and the patina accumulated over previous centuries. Although some development had already been approved, the inspector considered that the act of demolishing and rebuilding the remaining elements would further undermine the integrity of the farmhouse, making it effectively a replica, thereby diminishing its architectural and historic interest. The inspector considered that the proposal would cause a high degree of harm to the non-designated heritage asset (NDHA) and its significance, and apportioned a substantial negative weight. The inspector gave a significant positive weight to the need to support energy efficiency and low-carbon heating improvements, as required by Paragraph 164 of the National Planning Policy Framework. However, the inspector concluded that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the farmhouse as a NDHA that would not be outweighed by its benefits and would conflict with the local development plan, and with the similar requirements of Paragraph 209 of the NPPF. The appeal was dismissed. Solar panel array on a church roof (Ref 3344153) This appeal related to the installation of a 28-panel array of solar PV panels with a battery installation and associated control accessories on a Grade II-listed church in the Lake District National Park. The church, dating from 1743 and unchanged, is a fine example of a rural place of worship from this mid-Georgian period. The panels would sit on top of the roof on rails fixed to timber rafters, with the associated battery installation placed within the tower. The panels would obscure the roof and mask the visibility of its traditional, natural Westmorland slate, with its inherent uneven and weathered appearance. The inspector considered that the solid expanse of uniform panels with an engineered and artificial appearance would cause harm. Compelling benefits were put forward, including lessening the environmental impact of the church by an 86 per cent reduction in energy use. That would support government aspirations set out in the NPPF and help the Church of England achieve net zero by 2030. While it was argued that the work’s reversibility could mitigate the degree of harm, the expected life of more than 20 years was considered a significant period of time over which the harm to the integrity of this important designated heritage asset would be readily apparent, creating a significant degree of visual intrusion.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=