Repair existing flint wall, extend the wall and install electric gates at the entrance to the property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 August 2026 by A James BSc (Hons) MA MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18th September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004332 Wood Farm, Pledgdon Green, Brick End Road, Henham, Essex CM22 6BN • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mrs Hayley Fletcher against the decision of Uttlesford District Council. • The application reference is UTT/25/2423/HHF. • The development is repair existing flint wall, extend the wall and install electric gates at the entrance to the property. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. In the interests of conciseness, I have taken the description of the development from the decision notice and appeal form. 3. As the appeal relates to a listed building, I have had special regard to section 66(1) of the Act. 4. Since the Council issued its decision notice, the Uttlesford Local Plan 2021–2041 (the Local Plan), March 2026 has been adopted. It now forms part of the development plan for the area, superseding the Uttlesford Local Plan 2005. A new National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was also published on 17 August 2026. I am required to determine the appeal on the basis of the development plan and the Framework in force at the time of my decision. Both main parties have been given the opportunity to comment on the Local Plan and the Framework and I have taken all comments received into consideration. Main Issue 5. The main issue is whether the appeal scheme preserves the setting of nearby listed buildings. Reasons 6. ‘Wood Farmhouse’ is a Grade II* listed building (Ref: 1306916), which dates back to the 16th century or earlier. It is a large, detached dwelling, which is two storeys high, with accommodation in the roof and has two gabled cross wings. The building has a timber frame and plastered finish. It has a plain, red tiled roof. The building lies within a rural location and sits within a spacious and verdant plot. Appeal Decision 6004332 2 7. Based on my site visit and the evidence before me, I find that the listed building’s special interest insofar as is relevant to this appeal is derived from its historic and architectural interests as an illustration of domestic architecture from the 16th century or earlier. The building’s surviving historic fabric, presence of traditional materials and its pleasing architectural design make important contributions in these regards. The building’s special interest also stems, in part, from its setting. Insofar as this appeal is concerned, the verdant and spacious nature of the plot and the rural character of the area, contribute to its special interest. 8. Adjacent to the appeal site is ‘Five Bay Barn circa 25 metres North West of Wood Farmhouse’, which is a Grade II listed building (Ref: 1112257). The barn was constructed in the early 19th century and is timber framed and finished with weatherboarding. It has a red plain tile roof. The barn has a gabled midstrey, with large cart doors. While the Council advises that the barn has been converted into a dwelling, the elevation facing the appeal site retains much of its agricultural character. 9. Insofar as is relevant to this appeal, I find that the barn’s special interest is derived from its historic and architectural interests as an illustration of agricultural architecture from the early 19th century. The building’s agricultural form, its timber frame and presence of traditional materials make important contributions in these regards. The barn also has group value with Wood Farmhouse. Its historic and functional relationship with the farmhouse contribute to the significance of both listed buildings and assists in understanding their historic agrarian context. 10. The appeal seeks consent for repair works to the front boundary wall to Wood Farmhouse. Consent is also sought for the extension of the walls and the installation of electric gates. The development has already been carried out. 11. There is insufficient information before me to reach a definitive conclusion as to whether the wall is curtilage listed and therefore forms part of the listed building, known as Wood Farmhouse. Nonetheless, the wall is clearly a historic wall, which is associated with the Grade II* listed building. The historic wall by reason of its siting and relationship to Wood Farmhouse and its use of traditional materials and detailing, makes a positive contribution to the special interest of Wood Farmhouse and also the adjacent listed barn. 12. The Council raises no objections to the repair works to the wall, which was previously in a poor condition and deemed unsafe by the appellant. The works have been carried out sensitively using traditional materials and techniques. The repair works have helped to improve the condition, stability and visual appearance of the wall, which in turn has resulted in a modest enhancement to the setting of the listed buildings and the character and appearance of the area. The wall has also been extended. With the exception of the stone caps and balls, I find that the height, design and use of materials in the extended section of the wall complements the historic wall. 13. The stone caps and balls that have been installed on top of the posts have a suburban appearance and do not reflect the rural and agricultural character of the locality. An electric gate has also been installed. While I observed dark coloured weatherboarding and timbers on the nearby buildings, the electric gate uses a timber-effect material. In this case, I find that the black, composite material due to its manufactured, solid and shiny appearance fails to appear authentic and it is Appeal Decision 6004332 3 visually discordant with the more traditional materials found in the locality and on the adjacent listed buildings. The gate by reason of its design and height is also visually impermeable and is an unduly urbanising feature, within the setting of two rural buildings. 14. I appreciate that Wood Farmhouse is set back in its plot, some distance away from the entrance walls and entrance gates. The gates are also subordinate in size when compared to the listed farmhouse. Nevertheless, the walls and gates form part of the entrance to the listed farmhouse and are experienced together in views from the public realm. Given the discordant form and unsympathetic materials, I find that the appeal scheme detracts from the special interest of the listed farmhouse and the adjacent listed barn. 15. For the reasons given above and taking into consideration the positive effect of the repair works, overall, I find that the appeal scheme fails to preserve the setting of the Grade II* farmhouse and Grade II listed barn. Policy HE6 of the Framework advises that when considering the effect of a scheme on the significance of a designated heritage asset, substantial weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The Framework is clear that the more important the asset, the greater the weight will be. Wood Farmhouse is a Grade II* listed building, which is a building of particular importance of more than special interest. 16. In this case, I find the harm to the setting of both listed buildings to be at a low level. Nevertheless, a low level of harm does not equate to a low planning objection and the Framework is clear that any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight. Where harm is identified, the Framework requires that the effect on the asset and its significance be weighed against any public benefits from the appeal scheme. 17. The appeal scheme has resulted in investment into the property, which has had a small economic benefit, which I give limited weight in my decision as a public benefit. The repair works to the historic wall have improved its structural soundness and visual appearance and have been carried out in a manner that is sympathetic to the historic character of the locality. I give the repair works limited weight as a public benefit in my decision. Nonetheless, there is no compelling evidence before me that the harmful elements of the wider scheme, including the stone caps and balls and electric gate, were necessary to secure those repairs. 18. The appellant argues that the set back location of the entrance gate has resulted in highway safety benefits as vehicles no longer need to wait on a 60mph stretch of the highway, prior to entering the property. However, the appellant confirms that there was no gate present at the time that they purchased the property, so I find no improvement in this regard. Furthermore, there is no substantive evidence before me that any historic gate resulted in highway safety issues. In addition, from what I observed on site, the width of the frontage and the available space between the historic wall and the highway would allow a vehicle to wait largely clear of the carriageway while any gates were opened. Accordingly, I give this argument limited weight in my decision. 19. The appellant advises that the gates are necessary in order to secure the appellant’s property, prevent unauthorised access and protect the appellant’s family, pets, visitors and property. I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns regarding security and the incidents of unauthorised access and trespass referred Appeal Decision 6004332 4 to in the evidence, and I have sympathy with the effect these matters have had on the appellant and their family. I also recognise that the Framework supports development that promotes safe and secure living environments and seeks to reduce the opportunity for crime and the fear of crime. However, I am not convinced from the evidence before me that the appeal scheme represents the only or most appropriate solution for achieving the appellant’s security objectives, particularly given the sensitive historic context. Consequently, I give this argument limited weight in my decision. 20. The appellant argues that the composite gate would have a significantly longer lifespan, require less maintenance and offer improved recyclability when compared to a timber gate, and that this would accord with the sustainability principles of the Framework. However, there is no substantive or technical evidence before me to demonstrate that the composite material would perform materially better than an appropriately specified and maintained timber gate over its lifetime and I therefore give this argument limited weight in my decision. Furthermore, reduced maintenance would primarily be a private benefit, as opposed to a public benefit. 21. It is clear that the benefits which have accrued are primarily of a private nature. There is no compelling evidence before me to suggest that the use of ‘Wood Farmhouse’, as a dwelling would cease in the absence of the appeal scheme. As a result, I do not find the appeal scheme necessary to secure the viability and long- term conservation of the listed building. 22. Overall, I give the public benefits limited weight in my decision. Consequently, there would be insufficient public benefits arising from the appeal scheme to outweigh the harm that I have identified. 23. Given the above, I conclude that, on balance, the appeal scheme fails to preserve the setting of the listed buildings and fails to satisfy the requirements of the Act and Policies DP3, HE4 and HE6 of the Framework. The appeal scheme also conflicts with Core Policies 52 and 62 of the Local Plan. These policies, among other things, require proposals to conserve designated heritage assets and their settings in a manner appropriate to their historic character and significance. Other Matters 24. While no objections have been received from neighbouring residents, this does not alter my findings set out above. Conclusion 25. For the reasons given above, having regard to the development plan as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed. A James INSPECTOR