Development in grounds of listed building — Building semi-derelict — Scheme would fund restoration — Whether harm by development would be outweighed by benefit of restoring listed building — Inspector finding against development proposals — Applicants’ appeal dismissed
The local planning authority refused outline planning permission, proposed by the applicants, for new buildings of 95,000 m2 in the grounds of Thremhall Priory, Dunmow Road, Stansted, for Class B1 use. The inspector held an inquiry and in his decision letter stated that the main issues were, inter alia, whether: (1) the proposed development would harm the character of the area, or (2) the setting of the nearby listed building, and (3) whether it would lead to the coalescence of the existing development along the A120. In particular he also considered whether the benefit of restoring the nearby listed building at Thremhall Priory outweighed any objection to the development.
The building was semi-derelict with the roof and some of the floors partly fallen in and much of the interior lost. The conclusion reached was that the development would so harm the character of the area and the setting of the listed building as to be unacceptable. The listed building warranted every effort being made to restore it, but a scheme approved in August 1991 to rebuild the listed Priory with additions and office extension was not financially viable on its own. However, the scheme for development presently under consideration, while it would help to fund the restoration works, was objectionable in that the harm caused by the appeal proposals would not be outweighed by the benefit of restoring the Priory — particularly in view of how little of the original building remained and how much of the restored building would be new work. The applicants appealed arguing that there was an inconsistency between the inspector’s finding that the listed building needed every effort to restore it and his conclusion that the ensuing harm would not be outweighed by the benefit of restoration.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. In Appendix 1 of Circular 8/87, it stated that every effort should be made to preserve Grade II listed buildings. However, that did not justify any degree of harm which would override other planning objectives.
2. The inspector had carried out a crucial balancing exercise and the court could not find any inconsistency within his conclusions. He was setting the scene for restoration benefits and reminding himself of general guidance which he then went on to apply to the particular building in issue. Neither in the circular nor in the decision letter did the reference to “every effort at restoration” warrant a reading that a building’s restoration was to be carried through whatever the price.
3. The other issues had also been clearly dealt with, namely that the setting of the listed building formed an essential part of the backdrop to the Priory and that the group of proposed free-standing buildings would detract from that setting.
4. Further, the proposed development would weaken the objection to coalescence along the A120.
George Bartlett QC (instructed by Titmuss Sainer Webb) appeared for the applicants; David Smith (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the Secretary of State for the Environment; the local planning authority, Uttlesford District Council, did not appear and were not represented.
