Appeal 3370324

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a detached garage with office above, at [site address] , Wiltshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/02836, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The appeal site is not separately listed but is protected as a curtilage listed building due to its historic association with the adjacent Stoford Farmhouse Listed Building. I am therefore mindful of the statutory duties placed on decision-makers by section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (hereafter referred to as the Act) to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings or their settings.

The main issue is the effect of the appeal development on the character and appearance of the local area bearing in mind the special attention that should be paid to the desirability of preserving the setting of the curtilage listed building [site address] and the nearby [name] listed building [name].

[name] was listed as [name] in May 1986 (Ref:1318733), including all buildings within its curtilage, including the appeal property now known as [site address] . The farmhouse dates from the mid C18 with late C19 alterations. It is two-storeys in height in an L-shaped plan and with pebble-dashed and painted walls and gable ended roofs with feature chimney stacks to their ends and red clay tile coverings to the roof. There are a mix of two-storey and single storey extensions to the side and rear, in a mix of gabled and hipped formats. Windows are 16 pane timber sashes to its principal elevations, with smaller 12-pane sashes to the rear service wing.

Historically, Stoford village comprised a line of farmsteads associated with [address], owned by the Earl of Pembroke after the dissolution. The South Newton Tithe map of 1844 illustrates the L-shaped plan of [name] as plot 52 and the adjacent rectangular plan of [site address] to the south as plot 51, recording the owner of both plots as the Earl of Pembroke, and with a tenant occupier. Given the above, I find that the significance of the listed building and its setting, insofar as it relates to this appeal, is derived partly from the quality of its architectural detail, and partly from its historical and social significance within the village and its links with [address] and the Earl of Pembroke.

The appeal property was the former coach house to the adjacent [name]. However, the property was separated and converted to a dwelling following planning permission in 1995. The building is a coursed red brick and flint building with a rectangular one and a half storey main building under a gabled pitched roof finished in natural slate. There is a single storey pitched roof section of building to the north gable, together with a detached one and a half storey height red brick and flint, hipped gabled building, which sits at right angles to the north of [site address] . This is separated by around a metre, the gap between buildings providing access to the appeal property’s rear garden. This detached building is also roofed in natural slate, and provides both storage accommodation for the appeal dwelling, and garage facilities for the adjacent [name].

Both properties share a single vehicular access to the A36 [address], which splits when off the highway, into two separate access driveways. The boundary between the adjacent properties, is formed by a dense evergreen hedge and high timber close-boarded fence. There are high evergreen hedges and close boarded timber fences to the boundaries of the two properties with the highway. The parking for the appeal property is currently on a gravelled forecourt in front of the property. There are clear views of [site address] from the public realm, through the driveway access, for both passing pedestrians and vehicle drivers. However, the location of the existing parking area means that the principal elevation of [site address] would often be substantially obscured by parked vehicles.

The proposal would introduce a detached pitched and hipped gable roofed building within the front garden area of the appeal property. It would provide a double garage at ground level with office accommodation in the roof space above, accessed by an internal staircase. The materials would be natural slate to the roof and horizontal lapped timber to the walls, having a rural aesthetic, which would be characteristic in the area. The Council acknowledge the design of the proposed building, of itself, to be acceptable.

The proposed garage block would be located well forward of the principal elevation of [site address] , with an extended gravelled driveway in front of it, providing vehicular access. Use of the garage and the gravelled access in front of it for parking of vehicles, potentially would remove parked vehicles from in front of the property, opening views of its principal elevation from the public realm, through the access driveway point. This would assist in conserving the significance of [site address] and preserving its setting.

Whilst the proposal would be visible from this viewpoint, due to its location, height, mass, materials and design, it would be well separated from, and subservient to, [site address] , and would be in keeping with a rural aesthetic. Views of parked cars could be appropriately screened by evergreen hedging alongside the new access area. I therefore find it would not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area and would, therefore, be acceptable.

The Council raise concerns that the proposal would detract from how [site address] is viewed as part of the grouping of buildings associated with [name]. However, at my visit, it was evident that due to the separation distance between the two properties, the established mature boundary separation between them, and the significant difference in the materials, scale and the architectural style of [site address] from that of [name], that the two properties would not, in practical terms, be viewed as being related to one another.

They would, partially due to the development that has already taken place to [site address] , already appear to be two separate buildings, from different timeframes in history. They would be experienced as the last, or first, properties in a row of detached residential properties, forming ribbon development situated along the highway, as one exit’s or enters the village.

Having regard to my duty under section 66(1) of the Act, and the relevant heritage asset policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), based on the evidence before me, my observations on site, and for the reasons highlighted above, I find that the proposal would not harm either the significance of, or the setting of, the [name] listed building as a heritage asset. Further, I find that the proposal would relate well to [site address] in location, scale and detail, and for the above reasons, would not harm the setting of [site address] as a curtilage listed building and heritage asset.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would accord with Polices 57 and 58 of the [name] (2015), which require, among other things, development to have a high quality of design which responds to the value of, and which protects and conserves, the historic environment.

The appeal site is located within the catchment area of the River Avon Special Area of Conservation (SAC). This is a designated Habitat Site, recognised for its National and International importance for nature conservation. It hosts protected priority habitats with water courses of plain to montane levels with floating vegetation often dominated by water-crowfoot, and species including [name], Brook lamprey, Sea lamprey, Bullhead and Desmoulin’s whorl snail.

This protected Habitat Site is under significant pressure from increasing phosphorous nutrient pollution. The River Avon SAC is listed as a phosphorous sensitive catchment area under the Water Industry Act 1991, due to evidence of high levels of phosphorus in its water catchment environment. Development within its catchment area needs to demonstrate nutrient neutrality.

Having examined the proposal, due to its use as a garage at ground level with an office use to the room in the roof space above, with no foul drainage requirement, it would not contribute to the phosphorous load in the [name]. On this basis, I find it would not be likely to have a harmful significant effect on the SAC and its qualifying features. Accordingly, it is not necessary for me to carry out an Appropriate Assessment under Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations) (as amended), or to consult Natural England.

I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council and the comments provided by the appellant. Where necessary I have amended the wording, in the interests of precision and clarity, and to comply with the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance and the Framework.

In addition to the standard time limit for implementation, in the interests of certainty, I have attached a condition specifying the approved plans.

I have not applied the suggested condition requiring materials used in the external surfaces of the development permitted, to match those of the existing building, as this would result in a change to the external appearance of the proposal which would make it more visually prominent. A condition requiring the submission of samples of all the materials to be used in the external envelope of the proposal, for approval by the Council, has been applied in lieu.

A condition controlling the use of the proposal to one incidental to the residential use of the main dwelling, and restricting its future use for habitable accommodation, for commercial purposes or forming a separate planning unit is necessary to ensure the character of the area, residential amenity and for nutrient neutrality on the [name].

For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal proposal accords with the development plan, read as a whole, and that there are no material considerations, including policies in the Framework, that justify determining other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.