12 CONTEXT 183 : MARCH 2025 proposed panels would appear as an overtly modern intervention and an atypical feature on an important roof slope, eroding the church’s aesthetic and historical interest. The inspector was also concerned about the loss of some slate to accommodate fixing the panels directly on to the roof structure and without adequate details he could not conclude that the historic roof could manage the additional load to the roof structure. The inspector also noted that the panels would be reversible but ‘would nevertheless be a feature for some considerable time’. Appeal dismissed. Installation of a photovoltaic array comprising 168 panels and associated infrastructure on the setting and significance of heritage assets (3333427) This scheme relates to a refusal of planning permission for a large area of ground-array photovoltaic panels and a cabinet within the grounds of a large historic house. The building, Paxhill Park House, its gardens, outbuildings and other structures are designated heritage assets. The inspector found that there would be less-than-substantial harm to the setting of these heritage assets but that this harm would be outweighed by the fact that the scheme would reduce the amount of energy drawn from the national grid, and it would improve the designated heritage assets’ carbon footprint. He concluded that it would also future-proof against potential rises in energy costs, particularly for the upkeep of a large historic house and grounds. Appeal allowed. The installation of a solar farm adjacent to a scheduled ancient monument in Norfolk (3351873) The proposal includes south-facing solar arrays grouped in five blocks of between seven and 13 rows. These have been estimated as being capable of generating 725 kilowatts of clean energy for the vegetableprocessing plant adjacent to the 11th-century motte-and-bailey Wormegay Castle, a scheduled ancient monument. Although the solar arrays would face away from the scheduled monument, the inspector stated that it would harm the setting of the asset. Although the inspector found that the setting of the scheduled monument had changed over time, the historic undeveloped rural landscape setting dominated. He concluded that the proposed change would significantly erode the surviving open, undeveloped rural setting of the scheduled monument by further enclosing the castle. This would curtail and distract from the extent to which the castle could be enjoyed within an open, verdant setting and would result in less-than-significant harm. The sustainable public benefits were considered not to outweigh the harm. Appeal dismissed. The installation of two LED advertising screens to the facade of the London Pavilion building in Piccadilly Circus (linked 3334774) These appeals relate to three applications for planning permission, listed building consent and advertisement consent. The appeal concerns the Grade II listed London Pavilion, part of the Trocadero. It is close to many other listed buildings in the Soho Conservation Area, and adjacent to several other conservation areas. Built in 1885 as a theatre, it was converted into a cinema in 1934 and has been altered since listing in 1978. Currently the building is being refurbished and converted to tourist accommodation. This decision, an interesting analysis of local and national policy, is worth reading in full. The inspector identified the building as a prominent feature in a locality whose character was dominated by illuminated advertising. Although she found less-than-substantial harm for the host building, she stated that there would be no harm to the setting of the adjacent listed buildings or the conservation areas and that the proposed shopfronts would have a positive impact. She stated that, overall, the public benefits, including small-scale economic and social benefits, would outweigh the harm. Appeals allowed. Change of use of dwelling from C3 use for short-stay letting (linked 3335859) These appeals relate to an appeal against an enforcement notice and a refusal of planning permission. The planning appeal was dismissed based on the loss of a dwelling house and the unsustainable location outside recommended locations, as defined by policy. Consequently the enforcement notice was upheld (but varied). The appeal dwelling is the home of the Headington Shark, described as a ‘spectacular tall model of a shark crashing through the front roof slope [which] has been in place since 1986 and has become a local tourist attraction’. As a result, the house is on the local list of heritage assets. The inspector highlighted the fact that the appellant did not contend that the use of the house as short-term let was necessary to fund maintenance works to the sculpture or roof. Alexandra Fairclough is a member of the IHBC law panel and a barrister (non-practising). She teaches heritage law at Manchester School of Architecture, and is principal built heritage and design officer at Bolton Council. The London Pavilion: LED appeals (Photo: Spudgun67, Wikimedia)
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgyMjA=