Appeal 3339139

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the Erection of single-storey rear extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application Ref: 23/03051/FUL dated 28 September 2023 and the drawings submitted with it subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: LH.M.PR01 (revision D) LH.M.PR02 (revision B)

Construction above ground level shall not begin unless and until detailed trade descriptions (or in the alternative, physical samples) of all exterior materials have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall proceed in accordance with the approved details.

Construction above ground level shall not begin unless and until 1:50 elevations and sections, together with construction details of eaves and glazing, have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall proceed in accordance with the approved details.

The appeal site is located within the Mickleton Conservation Area (MCA). It appears that the Council have no published character assessment1 for the MCA and, therefore, in order to attend to the duties, set out in Section 72 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 I have necessarily based my conclusions on my assessment of that character. Similarly, the Council refer to [site address] as a non-designated heritage asset 1 Such as recommended by Historic England Guidance Note (NDHA). Although no list of such assets is available within the District2, Policy EN12 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2018 (CDLP) indicates that such assets are to be ‘identified as part of the application process and given appropriate consideration’. I have determined this matter accordingly.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal upon the host dwelling and the Mickleton Conservation Area.

[site address] is an unlisted two-storey dwelling within the MCA, identified by the Council as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). Having regard to the criteria set out in Table 6 attached to Policy EN12 of the CDLP, I consider [site address] to have a moderate degree of architectural interest by virtue of what remains from its original vernacular form, and some historic interest from its previous use as a [address]. However, noting the differing elements of which the property is formed, its relationship with surrounding buildings and changes that have taken place in terms of exterior materials3 and fenestration, its primary significance is generated by its plan form and tight configuration with nearby properties such as [address], [address], [address] and the attached Rose and [name]. It is this grouping together with the residual vernacular character of built form apparent in the street scene that, in combination, define the character and appearance of this part of the MCA which it is desirable to preserve or enhance.

Turning to the principle of development, [site address] , with other identified dwellings in the MCA have, since 2003, been subject to an article 4 direction (A4 direction)4 which requires, in summary, that planning permission to be sought for certain works which otherwise were permitted by The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO). In that regard I note that Schedule 1 to the Mickleton Conservation Area Direction under Article 4(2) does not control works such as those proposed unless the works ‘front a highway or public open space’ whereas what is proposed sits within a well-enclosed rear garden.

Whilst it is not before me to determine whether the extension would be lawful within the provisions set out in the GPDO, it is material that, given the limited scope of the Article 4 direction, a modest but perhaps wider rear extension, albeit of less projection and height as provided by Schedule 2 of the GPDO, could likely be constructed without seeking specific planning permission. Although the appellant has not raised this issue, permitted development rights are widely understood and a likely, realistic, fallback. Given the limited controls over such development, the greater control over materials and other details which can be introduced by conditions stands in favour of the proposal.

I therefore conclude that, on balance, the proposal would, by its location and modest size relative to the host dwelling, have negligible impact on the 2 According to Policy EN12 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2018 3 Painted brick and stone, non-original windows 4 that restricts rights granted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO) character and appearance of the MCA, and as much is confirmed by the approach taken in the A4 direction. The resultant change would not significantly affect the primary, but already altered, significance of the host dwelling in terms of its visual relationship with surrounding development this being the reason for its consideration as an NDHA.

On that basis I find no conflict with Policies EN2 and EN11 of the Cotswold District Local Plan (2018) (CDLP) which seek to ensure proposals respect local characteristics and protect the special character of Conservation areas, and, in consequence, that the proposal would accord with the development plan taken as a whole. For those reasons, having regard to all matters raised, the appeal should succeed subject to the usual plans and timing condition, together with conditions to ensure materials and detailing do not visually conflict with, or otherwise harm, the character of the host dwelling.