Broad Interpretation of Heritage Asset Settings Affirmed in Catesby Estates Ltd v. Steer ([2018] EWCA Civ 1697)
Introduction
Catesby Estates Ltd v. Steer ([2018] EWCA Civ 1697) is a pivotal case adjudicated by the England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) on July 18, 2018. The core issue revolved around whether an inspector erred in law by narrowly interpreting the "setting" of a grade I listed building, Kedleston Hall, thereby inadequately considering historical, social, and economic factors in planning permission decisions. The appellants were Catesby Estates Ltd. and the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, challenging the refusal of planning permission for significant housing developments near the historically significant Kedleston Hall in Derbyshire.
Summary of the Judgment
The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, allowing the appeal. The central determination was that the inspector did not err in law concerning the definition and consideration of the "setting" of Kedleston Hall. While the initial judge, Lang J., criticized the inspector for a narrow interpretation focusing primarily on visual and physical impacts, the Court of Appeal found that the inspector had indeed considered a broad range of factors, including historical, social, and economic connections. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, affirming the inspector's decision to approve the planning permission for the housing developments.
Analysis
Precedents Cited
The judgment referenced several key cases and policy documents which informed the court's understanding of heritage asset settings:
- R. (on the application of Williams) v Powys County Council [2017] EWCA Civ 427: Highlighted the non-definitive nature of "setting" and emphasized planning judgment over strict interpretation.
- R. (on the application of The Friends of Hethel Ltd.) v South Norfolk District Council [2011] 1 WLR 1216: Emphasized that the extent of a heritage asset's setting must be considered in context.
- Hopkins Homes Ltd. v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] 1 WLR 1865: Asserted that courts should respect specialist planning inspectors' expertise, presuming correct understanding of policy frameworks.
- R. (on the application of Palmer) v Herefordshire Council [2016] EWCA Civ 1061: Acknowledged that non-visual factors like noise or smell can affect the setting of a listed building.
These precedents collectively reinforced the notion that the evaluation of a heritage asset's setting is multifaceted, encompassing visual, historical, social, and economic dimensions.
Legal Reasoning
The court meticulously examined whether the inspector's assessment adhered to legal standards and relevant policies, particularly the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. Key points in the legal reasoning included:
- Definition of "Setting": The inspector utilized the NPPF's broad definition, considering both visual and non-visual elements, such as historical and economic connections.
- Comprehensive Assessment: Contrary to Lang J.'s assertion, the inspector evaluated the setting's historical, social, and economic aspects, including the impact of the "Derby Screen" on views.
- Policy Adherence: The inspector aligned his judgment with NPPF guidelines, ensuring that the significance of Kedleston Hall and its park was meticulously weighed against the public benefits of housing development.
- Judicial Deference: Following established precedents, the court respected the inspector's specialized expertise, emphasizing that unless a clear legal error existed, appellate courts should uphold lower decisions.
The Court of Appeal concluded that the inspector's approach was lawful, comprehensive, and consistent with policy frameworks. Therefore, no legal error was found in his interpretation of the "setting" of Kedleston Hall.
Impact
The judgment holds significant implications for future planning decisions involving heritage assets:
- Broad Interpretation of "Setting": Reinforces the necessity to consider a wide array of factors beyond mere visual impacts when assessing the setting of heritage assets.
- Respect for Specialist Judgment: Affirms the deference appellate courts owe to planning inspectors, thereby upholding specialized expertise in nuanced cases.
- Policy Alignment: Encourages decision-makers to align closely with NPPF and related guidance, ensuring that heritage conservation is balanced with public benefits like housing.
- Precedent for Multifaceted Assessment: Establishes a precedent for evaluating historical, social, and economic connections as integral components of a heritage asset's setting.
Overall, the judgment underscores the complexity of heritage conservation within urban planning and the importance of a holistic approach in safeguarding significant historical assets.
Complex Concepts Simplified
Heritage Asset
A heritage asset refers to buildings, monuments, sites, landscapes, or areas recognized for their historical, architectural, or cultural significance. These assets are deemed important for preservation due to their value to current and future generations.
Setting of a Heritage Asset
The "setting" encompasses the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. This includes not just the physical environment but also historical, social, and economic contexts that contribute to the asset's significance.
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
The NPPF is a key policy document guiding planning decisions in England. It outlines principles and guidelines to ensure sustainable development while conserving heritage assets.
Grade I Listed Building
A Grade I listed building is of exceptional interest, sometimes considered internationally important. Such designation offers the highest level of protection against unauthorized alterations.
Conclusion
The Court of Appeal's decision in Catesby Estates Ltd v. Steer reaffirms the necessity for a comprehensive and nuanced approach in evaluating the settings of heritage assets. By upholding the inspector's broad interpretation that encompasses visual, historical, social, and economic factors, the judgment ensures that heritage conservation remains aligned with contemporary planning needs. This case sets a meaningful precedent, emphasizing the balance between preserving historical significance and facilitating essential public developments such as housing.
Comments