Timber fencing at Middleton Castle, Middleton, King's Lynn

What was proposed

The application sought listed building consent to retain a 2.025-metre close-panel timber fence attached to a curtilage listed wall.

“The applicant is seeking listed building consent to retain a close panel boarded fence attached to a curtilage listed wall, outside of a grade I listed building.”

“This application is for Listed Building Consent to retain a recently erected close panel boarded fence within the curtilage of the grade I listed Middleton Castle. The fence has been attached to the wall surrounding the entrance to the property. While this wall is more recently constructed than Middleton Castle, it is considered to be curtilage listed by virtue of its architectural merit and its age.”

Officer report

The site and history

The fence was recently erected within the castle curtilage, and a related application sought a certificate for existing fencing behind an unused entrance.

“25/01729/LDE - Lawful Development Certificate: Retention of existing close boarded timber fencing panels to a height of 2.025m behind unused site entrance.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the fence used inappropriate materials, damaged the listed wall and harmed the heritage setting without identified public benefits.

“The scheme is wholly discordant with the traditional materials required for use in the setting of a grade I listed building and has caused irreparable damage to a curtilage listed wall. The applicant has not demonstrated that there is a need for a fence that a more appropriately designed and detailed solution would not adequately address.”

“The attachment of a close panel boarded timber fence to a curtilage listed wall in the setting of the grade I listed Middleton Castle, would cause less than substantial harm to the significance of the curtilage listed wall and the setting of the grade I listed Middleton Castle. It is an inappropriate material for use within the historic setting and has caused permanent and non-reversable damage to the curtilage listed wall.”

Officer report

What people said

One supporter said the fence had been erected for privacy and security after people stopped to photograph the property.

“REPRESENTATIONS – ONE comment in SUPPORT;”

“My father in law - who lived at the property - erected a fence having obtained planning permission in the late 1980's as a result of people stopping to take photographs of the property.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Conservation Officer introduced the application and explained the fence’s relationship with the curtilage listed wall and grade I listed building.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed the fence’s visual and structural effects, the lack of prior conservation consultation, privacy concerns and possible alternatives.

“The Committee noted the key issues for consideration when determining the application, as set out in the report.”

“Members discussed the visual and structural impact of the fence, the lack of prior consultation with the conservation officer, and possible alternatives such as raising the wall or using a hedge. The applicant’s reasons for privacy were acknowledged, but the Committee emphasised the importance of heritage protection.”

Minutes

The votes

Members rejected a two-month deferral by 3 votes to 11, with 1 abstention, then approved refusal by 10 votes to 1, with 4 abstentions.

“The Democratic Services Officer carried out a roll call on the proposal to defer the application for 2 months and, after having been put to the vote, was lost (3 votes for, 11 votes against and 1 abstention).”

“As the proposal was lost, the Democratic Services Officer then carried out a roll call on the recommendation to refuse the application and, after having been put to the vote, was carried (10 votes for, 1 vote against and 4 abstentions).”

Minutes

The decision

The application was refused as recommended.

“RESOLVED: That the application be refused as recommended.”

Minutes