Important Grade II* Listed Building protected from urban encroachment

01 Jan 2018

Planning and Environment

Land East of Bury Close, Cottingham LE16 8XF
Appeal Ref: APP/U2805/W/15/30005683 17/06/16

David Lintott successfully appeared for Corby District Council in this s.78 planning appeal. Christopher Young appeared for the Appellant. The case considers the weight to be afforded to policies protecting listed buildings in the face of a housing land supply shortage post Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v Hopkins Homes Ltd: [2016] EWCA Civ 168; [2016] 2 P. & C.R. 1 and Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v E Northants DC: [2014] EWCA Civ 137; [2015] 1 W.L.R. 45; [2014] 1 P. & C.R. 22.

The appeal was made by Kiff and Troke Partnership against the decision of Corby Borough Council refusing to grant outline permission for redevelopment comprising the erection of up to 31 dwellings.

Tim Wood BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI, an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, concluded that:

(1) The proposal would fail to preserve the setting of Grade II* listed Cottingham Hall and would fail to either preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Cottingham and Middleton Conservation Area. In this way the proposal would have a harmful effect on the setting of the Hall and on the conservation area. Although the affect would be ‘less than substantial harm’ as set out in paragraph 134 of the National Planning Policy Framework considerable importance and weight should be attached to this harm in the determination of the appeal following the decision in Barnwell Manor. (see paragraph [14])

(2) The appeal proposal, within the close locality of the appeal site, would have an unacceptable effect on the landscape and views, as it is experienced within the context of the conservation area and as part of the setting of the listed building (paragraph [16]).

(3) Hopkins Homes Ltd provides that policies which have an effect of influencing the supply of housing land “ restricting the locations where new housing may be developed…” including those policies “…whose purpose is to protect the local environment in one way or another by preventing or limiting development” may be considered as relevant policies. In relation to CSS Policy 13, the Inspector considered that the protection of, amongst other things, designated environmental assets and their setting is an important aim which also carries a statutory duty. Accordingly he attached significant weight to this aspect of policy (paragraph [23]).

(4) Taking account of the status of the listed building and the effects on the very recently extended conservation area, the Inspector considered that the harm was of considerable importance and weight. The benefits, including the provision of housing in circumstances of a housing land supply shortfall, were insufficient to outweigh the serious and irreversible harm that would be caused on the significance of the conservation area and the Grade II* listed building when the balancing exercise under paragraph 134 of the NPPF was carried out (paragraph 134 being a paragraph 14, footnote 9 policy). (see paragraphs [24]-[26])

Click here for the decision.