Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — by H Smith BSc (Hons) MSc MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13th September 2024

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Coventry CV7 8AD • 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 Ms Katie McPhilimey against the decision of Coventry City Council. • The application Ref is PL/2023/0000822/HHA. • The development proposed is retention of existing sliding security gate and flanking fencing panels on western side; erection of linking sandstone wall topped with iron railings and iron pedestrian gate connecting to south-west corner of house; landscaping/planting at site entrance.

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Coventry CV7 8AD • The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant listed building consent. • The appeal is made by Ms Katie McPhilimey against the decision of Coventry City Council. • The application Ref is PL/2023/0000823/LBC. • The works proposed are the retention of existing sliding security gate and flanking fencing panels on western side; erection of linking sandstone wall topped with iron railings and iron pedestrian gate connecting to south-west corner of house; landscaping/planting at site entrance.

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — Decisions 1. Appeal A: The appeal is dismissed. 2. Appeal B: The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 3. As the proposal relates to a listed building, I have had special regard to

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act).

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — proposed linking wall with railings and a pedestrian iron gate. At my site visit https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — proposed linking wall with railings and a pedestrian iron gate. At my site visit https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — proposed linking wall with railings and a pedestrian iron gate. At my site visit Appeal Decisions APP/U4610/W/24/3340114, APP/U4610/Y/24/3340121 I saw that a fence and gates had been constructed on site. However, as I cannot be certain that what has been built is fully in accordance with the plans before me, I have assessed the development and works as shown on the plans. Main Issues 6. A main issue in Appeal A and the main issue in Appeal B is: • whether the proposal would preserve a Grade II listed building, or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. 7. An additional main issue in Appeal A is: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations and if so, whether this would amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal. Reasons Special interest and significance 8. The appeal site relates to a Grade II listed building1 located at Home Meadow. The listed building is a former barn that has a gabled roof and is built of a timber framed construction, built on a plinth of red sandstone.

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — proposed linking wall with railings and a pedestrian iron gate. At my site visit To its north is a large modern extension with two facing gables overlooking the driveway to the east. 9. The evidence suggests that the timber framed section of the building was built in the 1600’s and therefore is a rare survival of a late medieval building. Its existence provides evidence of building methods used in vernacular building types typical to the Arden area. 10. The appeal property forms part of a collection of former farm buildings previously associated with Hazel Grove Farmhouse. They are situated in an area of open countryside. 11. From the evidence before me, including the list description and observations on my site visit, the special interest and significance of the building as a heritage asset are largely derived from its age, historic use, and architectural style. Of note are its vernacular form and use of traditional construction techniques and materials. 12. Pertinent to the appeals, the building’s special interest and significance also stem in part from its setting. The largely open area immediately surrounding the property is the primary space where it is experienced, and its 1 List Entry Number: 1076057 – Barn approx. 3m west of Hazel Grove Farmhouse. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — proposed linking wall with railings and a pedestrian iron gate. At my site visit Appeal Decisions APP/U4610/W/24/3340114, APP/U4610/Y/24/3340121 significance appreciated. As such it contributes in a positive way to its heritage merit. Proposal and effects on heritage asset 13. The proposal seeks permission for a sliding electronic gate and flanking fence panels, a linking sandstone wall topped with iron railings and an iron pedestrian gate connecting to the south-west corner of the listed building. 14. The sliding gate and fence panels form a substantial, solid structure positioned within the setting of the listed building. The use of modern materials, such as black plastic panels, gives them a stark appearance that sharply contrasts with the natural materials of the listed building and its rural surrounds. Their substantial scale, including width and height, creates a prominent feature that stands out against the traditional character of the building, making it highly visible from Wall Hill Road. 15. Thus, the proposal’s scale, massing and use of modern materials creates a conspicuous development, visually competing with the listed building.

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — proposed linking wall with railings and a pedestrian iron gate. At my site visit Although the existing vegetation to the west would partially screen it, views from the road and neighbouring property would still be possible, making the proposal detrimental to the heritage asset. 16. I accept that the stark, new appearance of the gate and fence would soften over time, and it may also be that its appearance could be improved with a change in its colour. However, that would not address the harm arising from its size and solid form. 17. The materials used for the proposed linking stone wall would be reflective of the materials currently present on the listed building, and the iron gate and railings that would sit on top of the stone wall would have a more open nature, maintaining views of the building. Therefore, I find this element of the proposal would not be harmful to the character of the listed building. Nevertheless, it would not justify the unacceptable development identified above. 18. Furthermore, from the evidence submitted it is not clear whether the proposed linking stone wall with railings and iron gate would be physically attached to the listed building.

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — proposed linking wall with railings and a pedestrian iron gate. At my site visit Insufficient information has been submitted as to what is being proposed in this regard, and therefore a meaningful assessment cannot be made. As such, I cannot be certain that the proposal would not result in the loss of or damage to the listed building’s historic fabric. 19. For the reasons given, the proposal would detrimentally alter the authenticity of how the asset is experienced and the ability to appreciate its significance, lessening the contribution the building’s setting makes to its special interest and significance. 20. I have considered whether the proposal could be improved with landscape planting. However, due to the hard surface driveway, there appears to be little scope for landscaping in front of the fence and gates and the proposed planting area shown on the site plan is small and would be positioned on lower ground than the tall fence and gates. Moreover, I do not have a detailed scheme before me to demonstrate what improvements could be https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — proposed linking wall with railings and a pedestrian iron gate. At my site visit Appeal Decisions APP/U4610/W/24/3340114, APP/U4610/Y/24/3340121 secured. In these circumstances, I am not persuaded that the harm could be addressed with a planning condition requiring landscaping. 21. The appellant states that prior to the residential conversion of the building, it was obscured for many years with a lean-to structure against its front or road-facing wall, and mature trees partly obscured the view from the road. However, while of itself the conversion of the barn may have better revealed its significance, the proposal would detract from the building and alter the ability to appreciate its significance. 22. The appellant also suggests that extensions added to the property have dwarfed the original listed barn and these have a much greater cumulative impact upon its setting and character. This may be so, but it does not negate the harm identified above. 23. Given the above, the proposal would not preserve the listed building, or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. In doing so it would harm the significance of the designated heritage asset. Public Benefits and Heritage Balance 24.

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — proposed linking wall with railings and a pedestrian iron gate. At my site visit With reference to paragraphs 207 and 208 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework), in finding harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, the magnitude of that harm should be assessed. Given the extent and fairly localised nature of the proposal, I find that the harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset assessed above would be ‘less than substantial’ but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 208 of the Framework requires this harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including where appropriate, securing the asset’s optimum viable use. 25. In this case, economic benefits would be delivered through the construction phase. However, these would be limited due to the extent of the development and works. 26. The primary outcome of the proposal would be increased security and privacy. This would be solely of private benefit to the occupiers of the property rather than a benefit to the public at large. Furthermore, I am not persuaded that the only way of securing the benefits identified would be via the appeals proposal. 27.

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — proposed linking wall with railings and a pedestrian iron gate. At my site visit Additionally, it has not been demonstrated that the property would not be usable or viable as a dwelling or that its future would be at risk if the appeals were to fail and the development and works as proposed were not implemented. In these respects, the identified harm to the significance of the listed building has not been clearly and convincingly justified. 28. On balance, in giving considerable importance and weight to the harm to the significance of the listed building, I find that this would not be outweighed by the limited public benefits arising from the proposal. 29. I conclude that the proposal would not preserve the listed building, or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. It would therefore fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — proposed linking wall with railings and a pedestrian iron gate. At my site visit Appeal Decisions APP/U4610/W/24/3340114, APP/U4610/Y/24/3340121 the provisions within the Framework which seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment. It would also conflict with Policies DE1 and HE2 of the Coventry City Council Local Plan (adopted 2017) (Local Plan). Collectively, these policies amongst other things, seek to ensure development preserves or enhances the character and setting of historic assets and sustains local distinctiveness. Whether inappropriate development in the Green Belt 30. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy in the Framework is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belt are their openness and their permanence. 31. Paragraph 152 of the Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 32. Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate development unless it falls into one of the listed exceptions a to g. 33.

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — proposed linking wall with railings and a pedestrian iron gate. At my site visit Policy GB1 of the Local Plan sets out that inappropriate development will not be permitted in the Coventry Green Belt unless very special circumstances exist. Development proposals, including those involving previously developed land and buildings, in the Green Belt will be assessed in relation to the relevant national planning policy. Therefore, this policy is broadly consistent with the Framework. 34. The appeal site comprises a residential dwelling located on the north side of Wall Hill Road, a narrow country lane. The property sits within the Green Belt, overlooking a garden area to the west, open fields to the north, and Hazel Grove Farmhouse to its east side. 35. The proposal would be fixed to the ground and is intended to be a permanent fixture. It would be tall and extend for a considerable length with a mainly solid physical presence. Thus, the proposed structure should be regarded as a building for the purposes of these appeals. 36. The proposed structure would not be a replacement boundary treatment or an extension to an existing boundary treatment. Accordingly, none of the exceptions at Paragraph 154 of the Framework apply. Thus, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — proposed linking wall with railings and a pedestrian iron gate. At my site visit It would therefore fail to accord with the Green Belt protection aims of the Framework, with which Policy GB1 of the Local Plan is consistent. I am required to attach substantial weight to the harm caused by virtue of the proposal’s inappropriateness. Openness of the Green Belt 37. Paragraph 142 of the Framework identifies the essential characteristics of the Green Belt as being its openness and permanence. Openness in terms of Green Belt has a spatial and visual aspect. 38. The proposed linking sandstone wall would be low in height and topped with open iron railings and an iron pedestrian gate. Therefore, this would be of an open nature rather than a solid design. However, the sliding gate is around https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — proposed linking wall with railings and a pedestrian iron gate. At my site visit Appeal Decisions APP/U4610/W/24/3340114, APP/U4610/Y/24/3340121 2.4m high and 7.9m wide, and the fence to the left of the gate is around 1.8m high and 7.8m wide overall. These have a solid design, constructed from a steel structural framework with dense and continuous plastic panels with no gaps allowing views through it. By reason of its height and solidity the gate and fence have a significant enclosing effect, thus reducing the openness of the Green Belt. 39. The positioning of the proposal is set back from the road and some screening is provided by existing vegetation to the west. Nevertheless, the proposal is tall, and its solid construction occupies a significant length of road frontage. Due to the sloping nature of the appeal site’s driveway towards the road, the proposed structure would be on higher ground than the road and therefore appears visually prominent when viewed from Wall Hill Road. This would be exacerbated when the existing vegetation is not in leaf. Therefore, the built form of the proposal would diminish the contribution the site makes to the openness of the Green Belt in spatial and visual terms. 40. The appellant refers to dense vegetation restricting the openness of the Green Belt.

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — proposed linking wall with railings and a pedestrian iron gate. At my site visit However, natural vegetation is an accepted part of the countryside, and the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl. 41. Consequently, for the reasons given, there would be moderate harm to the openness of the Green Belt, which would be at odds with the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy. As above, I am required to attach substantial weight to this element of Green Belt harm. Other considerations 42. The appellant advises that the proposal is needed for security reasons. Moreover, the appellant has drawn my attention to a range of incidents at the property, including thefts from garages, night-time intruders, cars driving onto the property, and security threats and invasions of privacy. 43. I appreciate that the large size of the garden makes surveillance difficult. However, it has not been demonstrated that the proposal is the only way to address the appellant’s concerns. I accept that a low picket fence would do little to deter intruders. Yet I have no evidence to show whether other options, such as boundary treatment of a different type or design, have been considered in any detail. Consequently, I attach only limited weight to the appellant’s wish to retain this particular fence and gates.

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — proposed linking wall with railings and a pedestrian iron gate. At my site visit 44. The proposal would improve privacy for the occupiers of the appeal property. Nevertheless, screen planting such as hedging would also provide privacy and would be less visually intrusive. I therefore give this consideration very little weight. 45. My attention has been drawn to a previous permission at the appeal site for two staggered brick walls with piers at the entrance to the property (refs: 44493 and L/44493/A). However, I have not been presented with the full details of this other case, including details such as the officer’s report and consultation responses. As such, the circumstances which led to this previous permission are not before me. I also note that it was granted permission in 1992 and therefore was assessed against a different national https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — proposed linking wall with railings and a pedestrian iron gate. At my site visit Appeal Decisions APP/U4610/W/24/3340114, APP/U4610/Y/24/3340121 and local planning policy context. In any event, they set no precedent in this appeal as I have considered this appeal on its individual merits based on the evidence before me and my observations on site. 46. My attention has also been drawn to other properties within the local area with prominent front boundary treatments. However, for this particular case before me, it would not be appropriate for the reasons given above. Green Belt Balance 47. The proposal would be inappropriate development and would cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Paragraph 153 of the Framework states that substantial weight would be given to this identified harm. In addition, harm has also been identified to the significance of a heritage asset, to which I attach considerable importance and weight. 48. For the reasons given, the total weight of the other considerations does not clearly outweigh the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. 49.

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — proposed linking wall with railings and a pedestrian iron gate. At my site visit As a result, the proposal conflicts with the Framework and Policy GB1 of the Local Plan, which, amongst other things, seeks to protect the Green Belt and its openness in line with national policy. Other Matters 50. The appeal site is adjacent to the Grade II listed Hazel Grove Farmhouse. It is a late 18th Century red brick and clay tile structure that is currently in residential use. In so far as it relates to these appeals, the significance of Hazel Grove Farmhouse is derived from its respective historical and architectural interests including its age, form, and fabric, and its historical relationship with the site as the former farmhouse. 51. Given the location and extent of the proposal, the setting of this listed building would be preserved and the contribution it makes to the assets’ significance would not be harmed. This would meet the requirements of section 66(1) of the act; the provisions of the Framework regarding the conservation and enhancement of the historic environment; and Policies DE1 and HE2 of the Local Plan referred to above. I note the Council raised no concerns in this respect either. 52. I acknowledge that there were no objections from neighbours or from the Parish Council.

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — proposed linking wall with railings and a pedestrian iron gate. At my site visit However, these are neutral considerations and do not weigh in favour of the proposal. Conclusion 53. The harm which I have identified to the significance of the listed building is, in itself, determinative. Moreover, the Green Belt matters are also determinative in their own right. 54. Appeal A: The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations which indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — proposed linking wall with railings and a pedestrian iron gate. At my site visit However, these are neutral considerations and do not weigh in favour of the proposal. Conclusion 53. The harm which I have identified to the significance of the listed building is, in itself, determinative. Moreover, the Green Belt matters are also determinative in their own right. 54. Appeal A: The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations which indicate that the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decisions APP/U4610/W/24/3340114, APP/U4610/Y/24/3340121 Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude that Appeal A should be dismissed. 55. Appeal B: For the reasons given, I conclude that Appeal B should be dismissed.

Home Meadow, Wall Hill Road, Corley, COVENTRY, CV7 8AD — Coventry City Council — H Smith INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate