Impact on a non-designated heritage asset (Ref 3343408)

The proposal included rebuilding the external fabric following a previous permission for works to an 18th-century farmhouse. The appellants did not dispute that it was a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). The issue at hand was the effect of the proposal on the NDHA and whether any harm was outweighed by its benefits. The farmhouse had both architectural and historical interest in the form of unusual details and ornamentation, but it had been extended and altered. The inspector considered that the rebuilding of part of the building using the existing rubble stone would result in difficulties, as reworking the rubble would result in changes and require new stone. The inspector also considered that the loss of the traditionally laid stone and its patina accumulated over previous centuries would create harm.

Taking into account the previous works already approved, the inspector concluded that the act of demolishing and rebuilding the remaining elements would further undermine the integrity of the farmhouse, making it effectively a replica, and diminishing its architectural and historic interest. The appellants argued that the works would result in significantly lower carbon-dioxide emissions over a 60-year period, as stated in the submitted sustainable construction assessment, and would exceed building regulation standards for a new-build construction. The inspector did give positive weight to the need to support energy efficiency and low-carbon heating improvements, but any benefits would not outweigh the harm. Dismissed.

This article originally appeared in the Institute of Historic Building Conservation’s (IHBC’s) Context 184, published in June 2025. It was written by Alexandra Fairclough a member of the IHBC law panel and a barrister (non-practising). She teaches heritage law at Manchester School of Architecture and is principal built heritage and design officer at Bolton Council.