27 HIGH STREET, IRONBRIDGE, TF8 7AD

27 HIGH STREET, IRONBRIDGE, TF8 7AD — Telford and Wrekin Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 December 2024 by Paul Griffiths BSc(Hons) BArch IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 January 2025 Appeal A: APP/C2340/Y/24/3342316 27 High Street, Ironbridge TF8 7AD • The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 against a refusal to grant listed building consent. • The appeal is made by Mr Adrian Eley against the decision of Telford & Wrekin Council. • The application Ref.TWC/2021/0043, dated 15 January 2021, was refused by notice dated 21 November 2023. • The works proposed are described as a proposed new brick wall at rear of property and new timber fence to side boundary line. Appeal B: APP/C2340/W/24/3342314 27 High Street, Ironbridge TF8 7AD • 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 Adrian Eley against the decision of Telford & Wrekin Council. • The application Ref.TWC/2021/0042, dated 15 January 2021, was refused by notice dated 21 November 2023. • The development proposed is described as a proposed new brick wall at rear of property and new timber fence to side boundary line.

27 HIGH STREET, IRONBRIDGE, TF8 7AD — Telford and Wrekin Council — Appeal Decision Preliminary Matters 1. I note that consent/permission was sought for a proposed new brick boundary wall to the rear of the property, and a new timber fence to the side (western) boundary. At my site visit I saw that these were already in place. 2. Drawing AE/RPA/100 submitted with the originating application provides details of the brick boundary wall and the fence to the side boundary that I refer to above. However, the plan also shows a fence with a gate connecting the fence to the western boundary to No.27 itself, and another gate to the north of that between the new fence and the listed building. This connecting fence and gate, and the separate gate, were not in place at the time of my site visit. 3. The appellant has confirmed that these elements, while shown on drawing AE/RPA/100 (Elevation 3 and the Site Block Plan), are not part of the scheme to be considered at appeal. I have approached the appeals in that way. 4. An argument is advanced in the appellant’s submissions that listed building consent may not actually be required for the boundary wall or the fence to the side boundary.

27 HIGH STREET, IRONBRIDGE, TF8 7AD — Telford and Wrekin Council — Appeal Decision I can appreciate why that argument is put forward, but I saw at my site visit that the new boundary wall is built up from an old wall that appears to have formed part of some outbuildings that were in place well before 1948. The side boundary fence is connected to this new wall. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

27 HIGH STREET, IRONBRIDGE, TF8 7AD — Telford and Wrekin Council — Appeal Decision I can appreciate why that argument is put forward, but I saw at my site visit that the new boundary wall is built up from an old wall that appears to have formed part of some outbuildings that were in place well before 1948. The side boundary fence is connected to this new wall. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

27 HIGH STREET, IRONBRIDGE, TF8 7AD — Telford and Wrekin Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/C2340/Y/24/3342316 & APP/C2340/W/24/3342314 5. Having regard to s.1(5) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the old wall that the new wall springs from is an object or structure within the curtilage of the listed building that forms part of the land and has done so since before July 1948. As such, the old wall must be treated as part of the listed building. The new wall that has been built off it, and the boundary fence connected to it, are therefore, alterations and/or extensions of the listed building. As such, both the new wall and the side boundary fence require listed building consent. Decisions Appeal A 6. The appeal is allowed and listed building consent is granted for a new brick wall at rear of property and new timber fence to side boundary line at 27 High Street, Ironbridge TF8 7AD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref.TWC/2021/0043, dated 15 January 2021. Appeal B 7. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new brick wall at rear of property and new timber fence to side boundary line at 27 High Street, Ironbridge TF8 7AD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref.TWC/2021/0042, dated 15 January 2021.

27 HIGH STREET, IRONBRIDGE, TF8 7AD — Telford and Wrekin Council — Appeal Decision Main Issue 8. Together, Nos.25-27 High Street make up a Grade II listed building. There are other listed buildings in the vicinity. All lie within the Severn Gorge Conservation Area, and the Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site. On that basis, the main issue to be considered in relation to the appeals is the effect of the works and development that has been carried out on the significance of these designated heritage assets and/or the Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) of the World Heritage Site. Reasons 9. The works and development that have been carried out – the boundary wall and fencing – have brought about a visual change that has had an effect on the listed building, and its setting, the setting of other listed buildings, the character and the appearance of the conservation area, and the OUV of the World Heritage site. The central question is whether the impact of those effects has been a harmful one. 10. As I noted at my site visit, the boundary wall and fence can be seen from High Street, through the gap between No.27 and No.28, from areas to the immediate south on the northern bank of the river, from the Ironbridge itself, and from the opposite (southern) side of the gorge.

27 HIGH STREET, IRONBRIDGE, TF8 7AD — Telford and Wrekin Council — Appeal Decision However, the wall has been built from contextually appropriate reclaimed bricks and notwithstanding the use of piers, it is not unduly complex in form. The boundary fence might have been visually prominent when it was installed, but it has weathered over time, and as the appellant has shown, it is sometimes overgrown with planting. 11. From what I saw, whether in closer or wider views, the wall and fence have blended in against the background formed by the rear of the buildings fronting High Street. Neither appears harmfully prominent or incongruous. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

27 HIGH STREET, IRONBRIDGE, TF8 7AD — Telford and Wrekin Council — Appeal Decision However, the wall has been built from contextually appropriate reclaimed bricks and notwithstanding the use of piers, it is not unduly complex in form. The boundary fence might have been visually prominent when it was installed, but it has weathered over time, and as the appellant has shown, it is sometimes overgrown with planting. 11. From what I saw, whether in closer or wider views, the wall and fence have blended in against the background formed by the rear of the buildings fronting High Street. Neither appears harmfully prominent or incongruous. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

27 HIGH STREET, IRONBRIDGE, TF8 7AD — Telford and Wrekin Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/C2340/Y/24/3342316 & APP/C2340/W/24/3342314 12. As a result, while they have a visual presence, it is not a visual presence that has had a negative impact on the significance of any of the designated heritage assets referred to, or the OUV of the World Heritage Site. On that basis, I see no departure from Policies BE 1 (Design Criteria), BE 3 (Ironbridge Gorge World Heritage Site), BE 4 (Listed Buildings) or BE 5 (Conservation Areas) of the Telford & Wrekin Local Plan 2011-2031, or advice in the National Planning Policy Framework. 13. I note that the Council expressed a preference for the use of hedging as a boundary treatment in line with advice in the Conservation Area Management Plan. However, given my findings in relation to the impact of the boundary wall and fence set out above, that expressed preference does not justify dismissing the appeals. 14. In relation to conditions, the Council has suggested a condition setting out the approved plans. This is not necessary given that firstly, the works and development have already been carried out, and secondly, I have clarified in specific terms what listed building consent and planning permission has been granted for.

27 HIGH STREET, IRONBRIDGE, TF8 7AD — Telford and Wrekin Council — Appeal Decision On that basis, no conditions are required. Conclusion 15. For all those reasons, the appeals are allowed.

27 HIGH STREET, IRONBRIDGE, TF8 7AD — Telford and Wrekin Council — Paul Griffiths INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3