Impact on listed buildings - *any* harm is reason to refuse planning?

[Stu789]

Does anyone have any experience in gaining planning permission when there would be less than substantial harm to a heritage asset?

 

We have had a pre-app response to a wheelchair adaptable self-build bungalow development which would be a backfill in part of a large rear garden of a grade II listed house - the Planning Officer concludes:

"whilst the principle of development is acceptable, and the proposal would result in the development of 1no. self-build dwelling, less than substantial harm to the setting of heritage assets has been identified. As such, and taking account of paragraph 212 of the NPPF, I do not consider the proposed development to be acceptable."

 

That seems a very harsh interpretation of Para 212 for a grade II listed building.
212. 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 (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.

 

Conservation officer raised 4 concerns which we can mitigate to some extent but even as assessed he concludes "the level of harm would less than substantial as defined by the NPPF" 

He cites NPPF Para 215: "Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use."

 

The public benefits (in line with Council policy and neighbourhood plan) I can think of:

- Neighbourhood Plan & Council Core Strategy - Increasing stock of an under-provided dwelling type (bungalow)

- Council Housing Strategy - Aim2: Enabling people to live independently

- Neighbourhood plan - Creating vacancy in a larger property 

 

We prepared the pre-app ourselves (with some much appreciated input from @ETC), this feels like a situation where a planning consultant might be needed...

Any ideas would be welcome.

Thanks

Stuart

[torre]

Helps preserve the listed building by financing necessary repairs, creates local employment are a couple.

 

Did the planning officer give any indication of the public benefits they considering when weighing up?

 

Does your council have an up to date local plan? If not that should tilt the balance further in your favour. 

 

It's good if you can already offer some mitigation for the points raised and your list of benefits already sounds good. It'll be harder for a planning officer to justify refusal of a full application then at the pre-app stage and I'd expect a planning consultant could get you over the line with this one. 

 

(We had to overcome less than substantial harm in a conservation area rather than re a listed building)

[Stu789]

Thanks @torre - local employment of trades during construction is something we would look to be oing so worth mentioning.

Both council and village have current core strategy & neighbourhood plan but there are points in those that support us.

 

In his preapp report the planning officer did include a page of detail on case law references on how ‘personal circumstances’ of the applicant could be considered as relevant material considerations and that how much weight that would carry is determined by council planning as decision makers - I'd like to think he is trying to be helpful whilst also impartial/non-commital etc. 

[Daniel H]

We're going around this block right now (Conservation Area, not a Listed Building though). 

 

You need to do two things. 

 

1. Assess the significance of the heritage asset and then the impact of your proposal on that significance. Use Historic England Guidance (https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/statements-heritage-significance-advice-note-12/) This should probably be in the form of a Heritage Statement. We paid a Heritage Consultant to write ours. 

 

2. That the Conservation Officer said it was less than significant means you need to supply a heritage balance by listing economic, social and environmental benefits and offering a weighting to each. 

 

We wrote this in our recent Appeal Statement but lifted from our Planning Statement (and agree a good Planning Consultant would be helpful).

 

"Notwithstanding our view that a heritage balance is not necessary, should the Inspector agree with the LPA that there is harm, the following heritage benefits have been identified:

Removing the derelict building
Creating a new dwelling sited in reference to the adjacent houses and designed in contextual materials and forms
Beneficial landscaping
Works to the stone walls 
Benefits to the stone troughs to the front of the site, particularly important for the annual Well Dressing.

 

In addition, the clear economic, social and environmental public benefits are as follows:

 

Economic: Construction-related employment and indirect employment would be created, benefiting local contractors, suppliers and professionals. Paragraph 85 of the Framework states that significant weight should be placed on the need to support business needs and wider opportunities for development. Limited positive weight should be attached to this.

 

Social: The proposal would provide a family home within an existing village in an accessible location. Even one house matters in the National Park. A new family home would contribute positively to the community and local services, helping to sustain the village. Furthermore, the improvement to the surroundings of the troughs would provide an enhanced setting for the village Well Dressing, an important community event. Moderate positive weight should be attached to these public benefits.

 

Environmental: We wish to highlight the environmental benefits of the scheme in particular which should carry moderate if not significant positive weight as they go far beyond the requirements of local policy CC1, and address the concerns of both the LPA and the UK Government to build environmentally sensitive homes.

As such, it would be our view that cumulatively the heritage and the public benefits are sufficient to outweigh the great weight attached to any less than substantial harm to the designated heritage asset. "

 

Good look with it - I feel your pain!
 

[Alan Ambrose]

Oh that old "less than substantial harm" BS. It's just a nonsense excuse too turn the application down. In East Suffolk there are literally thousands of 'grade II' listed buildings.

 

Suggest seeing if you can get any more info from the planning person on what might be acceptable. Otherwise a consultant to do the same. You might reasonably ask the officer what this 'harm' is - the planning officer should be able to describe exactly what 'harm' they are trying to guard against.

 

If you can determine that, you might be able to mitigate it. Otherwise it's just planning waffle.