For the removal of an existing pedestrian gate and hedge and the construction of a new vehicular access over an existing grass verge

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 6 April 2021 by J E Jolly BA (Hons) MA MSc CIH MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 APRIL 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/D3830/D/21/3267350 Mulberries, Lewes Road, Horsted Keynes, Haywards Heath RH17 7DP • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mrs Mary Clarke against the decision of Mid Sussex District Council. • The application Ref DM/20/3933, dated 21 October 2020, was refused by notice dated 18 December 2020. • The development proposed is for the removal of an existing pedestrian gate and hedge and the construction of a new vehicular access over an existing grass verge. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: • whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Horsted Keynes Conservation Area, and; • the effect of the proposal on the setting of a nearby listed building. Reasons Character and appearance of the conservation area 3. The appeal site is located in the Horsted Keynes Conservation Area (Conservation Area) to the front of ‘Mulberries’ on Lewes Road. ‘Mulberries’ is a brick and tile dwelling that is set adjacent to the Grade II listed building known as ‘Rixons’. The special character and significance of the Conservation Area, amongst other things, is derived by verdant areas of communal green spaces, lines of hedging, and the surrounding trees which frame the built environment. ‘Mulberries’ is a traditional style dwelling with a garage and car-port to the right-hand side. The host property has a vehicular access to the left-hand side and is bounded to the front by a beech type hedgerow and grass verge, and to the rear by mature trees. 4. At my site visit I noticed that the development has been completed and therefore retrospective planning is now sought. The development required the removal of a section of hedging, a verge and an existing boundary gateway to the right hand side of the dwelling, when viewed from the road, in order to construct a second vehicular access to the host dwelling. The right-hand access has a gravelled crossover with a dropped kerb, granite setts and a low wall that skirts the hedged boundary with the neighbouring property of ‘Rixons’. Appeal Decision APP/D3830/D/21/3267350 2 5. While I cannot be certain about the precise vintage and history of the established beech hedge to the front of ‘Mulberries’, and whether a previous Birch tree on the appeal site was diseased and dying or not, the fact remains that the development has created an increased gap in a hedged and modest timber gate boundary. Indeed, the development, which includes a reduced and broken hedge line as well as a semi-engineered crossover, enables ready and more apparent views from the footway and highway on Lewes Road of the garage and car port associated with ‘Mulberries.’ Moreover, the removal of this section of the hedge is at odds with the immediate area which is typified by continuous boundary hedge lines, including that seen on the opposite side of Lewes Road. Furthermore, in combination with the surrounding green spaces and trees, the hedging that fronts the host dwelling helps to maintain the special and verdant quality of the Conservation Area. As such, in my opinion, the partial removal of the hedge, that consequently provides greater views to the parking structures beyond, erodes the character and appearance of the area. 6. Therefore, I conclude that the development fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and results in an unacceptable degree of harm. 7. Accordingly, I find that the proposal is contrary to Policies DP26, DP34 and DP35 of the Mid Sussex District Council Plan, 2018, (MSDP) which say amongst other things, that development in a conservation area will be required to conserve or enhance its special character, appearance and the range of activities which contribute to it. 8. Similarly, the proposal is contrary to Paragraph 196 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which says any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. Setting of a listed building 9. The setting of a listed building contributes to its significance. Therefore, I have had special regard to Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 which requires the decision maker, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest, which is supported by the national Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) which says that a thorough assessment of the impact on setting needs to take into account, and be proportionate to, the significance of the heritage asset under consideration and the degree to which proposed changes enhance or detract from that significance and the ability to appreciate it. 10. I noted at my site visit that ‘Rixons’ is a dwelling of high architectural merit, with its significance informed by its architectural and historic interest as a timber-framed dwelling with the retention of key features such as clay hanging tiles, chimney stacks, wide eaves and a rear garden space. Indeed, the 17th century farm house dwelling is a property that is appreciated across the nearby green spaces as a rural style dwelling which is bounded on three sides by a pedestrian access gate, hedges or trees. Appeal Decision APP/D3830/D/21/3267350 3 11. However, the extent of a heritage asset’s setting is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surroundings evolve. To that end, the Appellant has brought to my attention that the existing hedge type is a relatively recent addition. Nonetheless, despite its relative youth, the hedge in combination with the green features of the Conservation Area provides a typically verdant and rural type setting for the listed building at ‘Rixons’. Indeed, notwithstanding the limited heritage statement, the dwelling is nevertheless likely to be representative of a period of time when the farmstead type property would have provided relative comfort to its occupants, but nonetheless be surrounded by hedges and trees that helped the transition into the surrounding farmland associated with the former ‘Rixons Farm’. 12. As such, the adjacent appeal site in combination with the hedging to the side of ‘Rixons’ has an inherent value as a hedged boundary, which forms an important part of the dwellings’ architectural merit and setting, which moreover, softens the surrounding built environment. Indeed, while the Appellant contends that the development is ‘reversible’ and of a ‘superficial nature’, I find to the contrary, that the setting of the heritage asset at ‘Rixons’ has been eroded by the partial removal of the hedge, the provision of a gravelled crossover and the inclusion of a dropped kerb and granite setts. 13. Consequently, I conclude that the development harms the setting of the listed building at ‘Rixons’. This would conflict with Policies DP26, DP34 and DP35 of the MSDP, which require, amongst other things, that development will be required to protect listed buildings and their settings. 14. For similar reasons, I find that the development would not meet the aims of Paragraph 193 of the Framework that explains that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Planning balance 15. The above considerations would result in ‘less than substantial harm’ to the Conservation Area and the setting of the listed building. The courts have confirmed that ‘less than substantial harm’ does not equate to a ‘less than substantial planning objection’, and this is supported by the PPG which requires that whether a proposal causes ‘less than substantial harm’ will be a judgement for the decisionmaker, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the Framework. As such, Paragraph 196 of the Framework provides for a balancing exercise to be undertaken, between ‘less than substantial harm’ to the designated heritage asset on the one hand, and the public benefits of the proposal on the other. 16. The development in combination with the entrance to the left-hand side provides access and egress to the host dwelling. Indeed, notwithstanding that the information provided to West Sussex County Councils Highways Authority is less than ideal, and subject to the imposition of an acceptable and appropriate condition related to visibility splays, the proposal would be likely to bring some limited improvement to highway safety in the very immediate location. Nevertheless, I attribute minimal weight to the combined economic, social and environmental benefits provided by the development. As such, this would be insufficient to outweigh the harm identified to the significance of the Conservation Area as a whole and the setting of the listed building. Appeal Decision APP/D3830/D/21/3267350 4 Conclusions 17. Therefore, having considered all matters raised in support of the development, I find that the other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified. Accordingly, the development is in conflict with the adopted development plan when considered as a whole, and given the above would also conflict with Policies contained within the Framework, and as there are no other material considerations that indicate a decision other than in accordance with those Policies, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J E JOLLY INSPECTOR