Demolition of the front wall, pillars and gate

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 31 July 2018 by S Wilkinson BSc (Hons) DipUP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Q3115/D/18/3203548 37 High Street, Benson, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 6RP  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 Mr J Murphy against the decision of South Oxfordshire District Council.  The application Ref P17/S4295/HH, dated 5 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 7 March 2018.  The development proposed is the demolition of the front wall, pillars and gate. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of the front wall, pillars and gate at 37 High Street, Benson, Wallingford, Oxfordshire, OX10 6RP, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P17/S4295/HH, dated 5 December 2017. Procedural Matters 2. During the planning appeal, the revised National Planning Policy Framework (2018) (Framework) was published. In the interests of fairness, the Council and the appellant were given the opportunity to comment on whether the revisions to the Framework had implications for their cases. Although the parties did not respond, I find that in relation to the merits of this case, the substance of the heritage policies in the revised Framework have not altered. 3. The appeal site is located within the Benson Conservation Area. In accordance with Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. 4. The front wall, pillars and gate have been removed and therefore I am considering this appeal retrospectively. 5. The appeal description referred to on the planning application form was altered by the Council on its decision notice to include the removal of the gate. I note that the appellant has used the amended description on the appeal form submitted. As such, the appeal description referred to in the header above has been taken from the decision notice. Appeal Decision APP/Q3115/D/18/3203548 2 Main Issue 6. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of No. 37 and whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Benson Conservation Area (CA). Reasons 7. The CA largely comprises of the historic core of the village which runs along the main village road. The appeal property is a prominent converted Church fronting onto High Street. This well-maintained historic property has a pleasing appearance within the CA which is further enhanced by its sympathetic residential conversion. The architectural merit of the building, which is largely unaltered, along with its prominence in the CA, more than justifies its designation as a non-designated heritage asset. 8. Paragraph 197 of the Framework states that when weighing applications that affect directly non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. Indeed, the positive contribution the appeal property has to the character of the CA depends not just on its street elevation but also its integrity as an historic structure. 9. Being constructed at the same time as the Church from materials to match, the front wall would have assisted in the operation of the Church and the gathering of its congregation. However, on my site visit I noted that the wall would not have formed part of a continuous frontage as I observed other examples of open frontages including the adjoining premises at No. 35 which has a large paved forecourt. The presence of the side boundary wall between these two buildings maintains a degree of enclosure for the appeal property whilst obscuring some of the views of the paved forecourt. The removal of the front wall, although low in height, does allow uninterrupted views from opposite the site and so a full appreciation of the highly decorative street façade of the appeal property. As such, I find that the loss of the wall, brick pillars and gate, does not undermine the historic and architectural relationship and significance between the Church and High Street. 10. I conclude that in accordance with the clear expectations of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the significance of the designated heritage asset would be preserved and the proposal would not adversely affect the non-designated asset of No. 37. Although the proposal does not provide any public benefit, I find that it does accord with the policies of the Framework, which seek to enhance the historic environment in that the demolition work does not harm the significance of the designated heritage asset. The proposal also accords with policy CSEN3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy (2012) and policies CON6 and CON7 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan (2011). These policies seek to conserve and enhance the character or appearance of a CA from proposals for demolition. Other Matters 11. The fact that the wall has been demolished without permission is not a reason in itself to dismiss the appeal and the proposal should be judged against material planning considerations. The appeal also relates to demolition works only and so I cannot consider whether the wall should be rebuilt. Appeal Decision APP/Q3115/D/18/3203548 3 12. The Council has not suggested any conditions and I agree that none are required. Conclusions 13. aving considered all matters raised in evidence and from what I saw during my site visit, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. S Wilkinson INSPECTOR