CONTEXT 183 : MARCH 2025 11 of the planning system are retained but the references to ‘beauty’ and ‘beautiful’ that were added to the NPPF in 2023, and one other reference to ‘beautiful’, have been removed. Chapter 12 (‘Achieving well-designed places’) states that ‘… design guides and codes can be prepared at an area-wide, neighbourhood or site-specific scale, and to carry weight in decision-making should be produced either as part of a plan or as supplementary planning documents.’ DCMS Select Committee An inquiry into protecting England’s built heritage has been launched by the DCMS Select Committee. It will examine how to prevent the loss and decline of historic buildings and other sites of heritage amid warnings of the serious financial and practical challenges many face. In particular, it will look at how the government can tackle practical and regulatory challenges, such as policy issues arising from net-zero targets and planning policy. We await the results of the consultation that closed in February. Marks and Spencer Angela Rayner, as minister of housing, communities and local government, has reconsidered the Oxford Street Marks and Spencer redevelopment refusal and the quashed High Court decision. She has concluded that the options for retaining the buildings had been adequately explored and that there was no visible and deliverable alternative. She has determined that there was a compelling justification for demolition and rebuilding. Disappointingly she did not believe that the alternative of refurbishing the building would result in less embodied carbon. She did recognise the financial contributions to the council’s carbon-offset fund. She gave weight to the design, the employment opportunities, public realm and wider regeneration benefits. We now need clarity on the weight given to schemes that promote retrofit and re-use of buildings as an alternative. Planning appeals Tall building within the setting of a scheduled ancient monument, listed building and conservation area (linked 3343569 and 3345943) These appeals relate to two different schemes that were determined together; both include tall buildings near heritage assets. The inspector noted that there would be a change in the setting of the scheduled ancient monument but considered that there would be no harm to its significance. ‘The existing building remnants, which appear isolated but are provided with context through interpretation boards, would not be altered’ and ‘there would be no harmful effect on the ability to appreciate the significance of the scheduled ancient monument’. The inspector considered that in views towards the site in which the new tall building would be glimpsed, buildings are always visible alongside the green areas of the conservation area. He stated that openness would not be significantly affected and that this building would add to the current character in which the natural and built landscapes interact but would not result in any harm to the setting or significance of the conservation area, nor the ability to appreciate either. The inspector agreed that the listed buildings would remain in the foreground of the development. The proposed building would appear some way in the distance and the silhouettes of the buildings’ roofscape would remain clearly identifiable. In conclusion, the inspector stated that the development would not detract from the features of the buildings, nor harm their historic or architectural significance, or the ability to appreciate them. One appeal allowed, one dismissed. Cleaning of a listed building (3334740) The appeal was against an enforcement notice following the unauthorised cleaning of a terrace making up a Grade II listed building on a London street. The appellant also dyed the brick window arches bright red. The council considered that the building had been excessively cleaned, and required the dye to be removed and the cleaned brickwork to be treated with a soot wash. The inspector considered that the removal of the dye and soot-washing the brickwork would cause damage to the listed building and asked whether the host building being cleaner than the other buildings in the terrace would harm its significance. He concluded that although the host building was cleaner, it was not incongruous. The appeal was allowed, the enforcement notice was quashed and listed building consent for the works was granted. Change of use and conversion of a large, listed, purpose-built public house of around 1820 to a single dwelling (linked 3345859) The proposal included some internal changes and the removal of the pub signage. The inspector considered that the plans did not provide a convincing proposal or show that the conversion had been carefully considered. Consequently the inspector concluded that ‘harm would arise from the loss of its original use, and I am unable to conclude that the proposal would secure the building’s optimum viable use, given the obvious difficulties incorporating a single house into such a large building’. The inspector drew attention to the appellant’s argument that the removal of the original pub signage would be a benefit of the scheme and rejected this approach, stating: ‘The existing signage is appropriately designed and scaled for the building, and is part-andparcel of its original use. Removal of all signage would be harmful to the building’s significance and can certainly not be accepted as a public benefit.’ The scheme would harm the significance of the listed building and the conservation area within which it was situated. Appeal dismissed. Installation of renewable energy sources to include a new solar photovoltaic array on a Grade II listed church (3346796) The inspector considered that the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=