Latest Jobs

Planning Policy Manager
South East England
£43,035 - £48,438
Head of Housing and Planning
North West England
Package up to c.£60k
Senior Development Control Planner
East of England
£18 - £23 Per Hour
CABE Enabling panel
Central London
Environment Officer
North West England
£19,126 - £21,519
Head of Planning
East Midlands
£44,411 - £49,866p.a.
Senior Development Control Officer
East of England
£29,236 - £35,321
Project Manager (Planning Business Process and E-Planning)
£19-£27 per hour
Planning Policy Officer
South East England
£24,012 - £32,604*
Principal Planner (Policy)
South East England
up to £35,430 p.a.
 
  • Print
  • Email it
  • News by email
  • Download appeal

DC Casebook: Mixed Use Development - Heritage site value blocks demolition

Mixed use development

Planning, 15 August 2008

The demolition of a former industrial building in a Northamptonshire village conservation area to allow mixed redevelopment of the site has been rejected because of the structure's historic importance.

The site comprised the sole surviving historic iron foundry in Northamptonshire. English Heritage advised that it was a rare historic relic and maintained that while it did not merit listing, its local interest meant that it was just the sort of building that conservation area legislation was designed to protect.

The inspector acknowledged that the site was an important reminder of the village's industrial heritage and made a significant contribution to the historic townscape. PPG15 advises that the general presumption should be in favour of retention in such circumstances, he remarked.

He acknowledged that the former foundry had serious structural problems but found no compelling case for its demolition. Because pollutants were contained on the site, he gave little weight to the benefits of contaminated land remediation. He also found that the appeal proposal's siting on the high street would harm the historic townscape.

The inspector judged that the benefits of the proposal were insufficient to outweigh the general presumption in favour of retaining the building. He was not convinced that all reasonable efforts had been made to find viable alternative uses and did not consider that the redevelopment would produce substantial community benefits that would outweigh the building's loss. He concluded that the developer's approach fell far short of the imaginative efforts advocated by PPG15 to find alternative uses or incorporate such buildings into new development.

DCS Number 100-056-448

Inspector John Woolcock; Inquiry.