Appeal 6001444

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear extension at [site address] , Worcestershire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: W/25/01365/HP, 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 plans: 701-001; 701-002; 701-003; 701-004; 701-005.

The appeal is allowed and listed building consent is granted for single storey rear extension at [site address] , Worcestershire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: W/25/01366/LB, subject to the following conditions:

The works authorised by this consent shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this consent.

All new external works and finishes shall match the existing adjacent work in respect of materials used, detailed execution and finished appearance. Appeal Decision 6001444 and 6001378

As the proposal is in a conservation area and relates to a listed building I have had special regard to sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act).

The Council did not identify any harm in respect of the effect of the proposal on the character or appearance of the Evesham Conservation Area. Given the modest scale of the proposal and lack of prominence from the public realm, I see no reason to conclude otherwise and find that the character and appearance of the Evesham Conservation Area would be preserved.

The appeal site is located in the vicinity of other listed buildings, including Nos 42 and 43 Merstow Green, and Nos 2 and [address]. The Council did not identify harm to the significance of those assets or any of their features of special architectural or historic interest as a result of the proposal. On the evidence before me, including my own observations, I am satisfied that the proposal would preserve the significance of those heritage assets.

The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve a [name] listed building known as “ [site address] ” (Ref: 1156752) (the LB), and any of the features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses.

The LB comprises an early 19th century two storey cottage of red brick. It has a central front door with sash windows to either side with segmental arches, and a tiled, pitched roof with side facing gables. It is attached on one side, to No 43, and has an adjoining single storey garage to the other. The LB has twice been extended to the rear. This is evident, in part, due to different red brick used on those extensions. They comprise two storey additions under a double pile roof. Internally, the modest proportions of the historic floor plan remain evident, notwithstanding the modern rear extensions. Accordingly, insofar as it relates to this appeal, the special interest of the LB is primarily derived from the architectural composition of the front elevation and its visual prominence onto Merstow Green. Significance is also derived from the legibility of the surviving plan form of its historic core, comprising its front ground and first floor rooms.

The proposal would add a single storey conservatory onto the kitchen and dining rooms that are within the existing rear extensions. As such, it would not involve alterations to, or loss of, historic fabric. Also, the architectural composition of its front elevation would not be disrupted. Moreover, the modest proportions of the historic plan form would remain distinct from the proposed extension. In combination with existing extensions, the quantum of extended floorspace would be greater than that of the historic floorspace. Even so, the proposed single storey extension would not diminish the ability to appreciate the modest scale of the historic core of the LB. As such, it would not have a tangible effect on the attributes that underly the building’s current significance.

The proposed single storey extension would match the brickwork of the extended building that it would adjoin. This would not match the brickwork of the historic front portion of the building because, as noted above, the brickwork on the Appeal Decision 6001444 and 6001378 previous extensions also does not match historic brickwork. Nonetheless, due to the presence of the intervening two storey extensions, the proposed brick colour would not detract from the architectural qualities of the historically significant elements of the building.

Therefore, I consider that the proposal would not materially harm the special interest of the LB. Instead, the architectural and historic interest of the LB would be preserved. This would satisfy the requirements of the Act, paragraph 210(a) of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) and would comply with policies SWDP6, SWDP21 and SWDP24 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (2016). These seek, among other things, to ensure that proposals are designed to conserve and enhance the significance of heritage assets and respect the characteristics of their surroundings.

In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the relevant provisions of the Framework, Planning Practice Guidance and statute. In addition to the standard time-limit conditions, a condition on the planning permission is required to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans to provide certainty. A condition is necessary on the listed building consent to ensure that the works are carried out using materials and finishes that match those of the adjoining building, in order to achieve a cohesive design that does not detract from the special interest of the LB.

For the above reasons and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that both Appeal A and Appeal B should be allowed.