"Where any area is for the time being designated as a conservation area, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing its character or appearance in the exercise, with respect to any buildings or other land in that area, of any powers under thisAct, Part I of the Historic Buildings and Ancient Monuments Act 1953 or theLocal Authorities (Historic Buildings) Act 1962 ."
"The proposal would be seriously detrimental to the history, architecture and visual character of this part of the Cartmel Conservation Area ..."
"6. The vicarage in my opinion should be regarded as being within the confines of the village. Whilst the proposed development would not fall within the generally accepted definition of infilling, I do not consider that it would be contrary to the important objectives of the settlement policy, designed to protect the countryside from unnecessary development. Providing that the proposed house did not cause harm to the character of the Conservation Area, I consider that it would accord with Policy A3 of the Plan . As regards Policy C5, in my opinion the local authority are fully justified in protecting the open areas within the village, which make a significant contribution to its character. I do not consider however that the mature domestic curtilage of the Vicarage, which is to a large extent screened from public vantage points by trees and shrubs along the east and west boundaries, and by the stone wall along the frontage to Priest Lane, should be seen in the same light as the nearby open pasture land.
"7. I would accept that the proposed house would be visible from Priest Lane, over the existing wall in front of the site and also when approaching from the east. I consider however that because of :he wail and the existing trees and shrubs on the site, that would be retained, the impact of a new house would not be great. In my opinion the effect on the character and a appearance of this part of the Conservation Area would be snail. I am also satisfied that the grounds of the Vicarage are sufficiently large to accommodate a new house without serious detriment to the setting of the existing building and without affecting the larger trees within the garden that make a particularly significant contribution to the area.
"8. I very much appreciate the concern of the Council and the local people, to preserve and enhance the special quality of Cartmel, and I would agree that they should be strongly supported. I am of the opinion however that providing great care was exercised in the detailed design of the proposed house, having regard to the precise siting, the materials, the massing, the roof pitch, and the details of features such as the eaves and windows, the proposed Vicarage could be accommodated without damaging consequences to the appearance of the village . Whilst there might have been no new building of significance in this part of Cartmel for over 100 years, that is not a reason to prevent development now, if no harm would result.
"9. I have had regard to the potential precedent that could be established were this appeal allowed. In the context of the village, I am satisfied that the physical characteristics of the site make this a special case and I do not consider that a permission for your client's proposal would make it difficult for :he Council to refuse applications elsewhere that might have more damaging consequences to the character of what is undoubtedly a most important conservation area."
"There is, in my judgment, a world of difference between the issue which the inspector defined for himself - whether the proposed development would 'harm' the character of the conservation area - and the need to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. In short, harm is one thing; preservation or enhancement is another. No doubt the inspector has demonstrated his concern that the character of the conservation area should not be harmed. That, in my judgment, is not the same as paying special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing that character as well as its appearance. The concept of avoiding harm is essentially negative. The underlying purpose of section 277(8) seems to me to be essentially positive."
"(iv) If, therefore, the decision-maker decides that the development will either enhance or preserve the character or appearance of the conservation area, this must be a major point in favour of allowing the development.
"(vi) If, however, the decision-maker decides that the proposed development will neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area, then it is almost inevitable that the development will have some detrimental, i.e. harmful, effect on that character or appearance."
"[Counsel for the Secretary of State] argued that a conclusion that a proposed development would do no harm is equivalent to a conclusion that it will presene. Even if that is correct, (and adopting the approach of Mr. Lionel Read Q.C. in Steinberg v. Secretary of State for the Environment, 58 P. & C.R. 453, 457, I doubt whether it is) this is not what, in my view, the inspector himself concluded."
"In seeking to resolve the issue I start with the obvious. First, that which is desirable is the preservation or enhancement of the character or appearance of the conservation area. Second, the statute does not in terms require that a development must perform a preserving or enhancing function. Such a requirement would have been a stringent one which many an inoffensive proposal would have been inherently incapable of satisfying. I turn to the words. Neither 'preserving' nor 'enhancing' is used in any meaning other than its ordinary English meaning. The court is not here concerned with enhancement, but the ordinary meaning of 'preserve' as a transitive verb is 'to keep safe from harm or injury; to keep in safety, save, take care of, guard:' Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed. (1989), vol. XII, p. 404. In my judgment character or appearance can be said to be preserved where they are not harmed. Cases may be envisaged where development would itself make a positive contribution to preservation of character or appearance. A work of reinstatement might be such. The parsonages board never advocated the new vicarage on that basis. It was not a basis which the inspector was invited to address but importantly he did not have to address it because the statute does not require him so to do.
"The statutorily desirable object of preserving the character or appearance of an area is achieved either by a positive contribution to preservation or by development which leaves character or appearance unharmed, that is to say, preserved."