Appeal 6001594

Appeal A and Appeal B are dismissed.

As the site 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 main issues are whether the scheme would: • Preserve the [name] listed building known as ‘ [site address] ’ (Ref

and any of the features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses; and • Preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area. Appeal Decision 6001594 and 6001595

[site address] is a mid-19th century rubble Cotswold stone, pitched roof property with copped verges and end chimneys. It has 2 gabled dormers and casement windows. There is also an attached outbuilding that has been converted. Though slightly staggered, it retains the historic linear form of the building and has traditional materials. Traditional materials such as stone and slate dominate. The historic core remains prominent and dominant and is largely unaltered externally other than a modern lean-to conservatory.

While the conservatory roof is not completely clear, the extensive glazing, narrowness of timbers and small eaves of the conservatory, allow views through this structure and enable an appreciation of the historic elements of the building. The sloping roof and simplistic form of the conservatory means it is a modest feature even with the white timbers. As such, the proportions of the historic core, with its narrow depth, steeply sloping pitched slate roof and minimal eaves, remains the dominant aspect of the house.

Given the above, I find that the special interest of the listed building, insofar as it relates to these appeals, is from its form, proportions and historic legibility of the building as an example of a linear vernacular Cotswold farmhouse from this period.

Orangeries were historically typically associated with higher status estates and grand buildings as additional luxury features. Therefore, it would not be a feature consistent with or in keeping with the more functional and practical purpose of a historic farmhouse.

The proposed addition would replace the existing conservatory and not involve the loss of any historic fabric. While of a lower eaves and overall height, the new extension would protrude considerably further from the historic core of the building. This erodes the linear form of the building. Whether or not the proposal takes the form of a traditional ‘orangery’, the uncharacteristic flat roof and large eaves would jar with the traditional pitched roofs on the historic core and the attached outbuilding. The rhythm of the glazing would not prevent the proposal appearing as a squat and bulkier feature at odds with the proportions of the historic core of the building.

Although not interfering with the roofscape, rather than appearing secondary, the more elaborate detailing of the roof lantern and chunkier timbers, even when chamfered, would be distracting. Despite the glazing still allowing an appreciation of the historic rear elevation in part, the scale and appearance of the proposed extension would create a more prominent addition from that of the existing conservatory. As a result, the extension would visually compete with the historic core.

The proposal would utilise traditional materials and construction methods for the region and the base wall materials would match the dwelling. However, the extension would not be consistent with the appearance or proportions of the historic elements of this building. Introducing alien features and form would erode the consistency of the historic architecture of the building to a greater extent than the existing conservatory. Appeal Decision 6001594 and 6001595

There is little information on the evolution of the internal layout adapting to modern living. In any event, there is an existing room in this position that links the dwelling with the garden.

There would be minimal views of the proposal outside of the garden. Nevertheless, listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of whether or not public views of the building can be gained.

Given the above, I find that the appeal scheme fails to preserve the special interest of [site address] . Due to the nature of the concerns, the scheme causes less than substantial harm at the lower end of the spectrum which nevertheless carries considerable importance and weight against the scheme.

The CA comprises much of the rural village surrounded by fields with mostly historic properties of a traditional design, many off narrow lanes and side streets. There is an overall consistency to the external materials with stone walls and slate roofs. To the rear of properties where extensions and outbuildings have been added there is more variation in terms of materials and design.

The significance of the CA lies, in part, in the architecture and layout of its historic buildings. Being a Cotswold farmhouse property, exhibiting many features typical of the CA, the appeal site makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA.

Despite the harm that would be caused to the listed building, I do not find that the proposal would be detrimental to the character or appearance of the CA. This is because the extent to which the proposed scheme would be visible from the public domain would be highly limited and it would only have limited prominence from the private domain. Unlike listed buildings, the significance of a CA is dependent upon how it is experienced and proposals should be judged according to their effect on a CA as a whole and must therefore have a moderate degree of prominence.

Given the scale and less prominent location of the rear extension, along with the more varied rear elevations found nearby, I find that the proposal would not harm the CA.

In addition to the statutory duty at section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the Framework provides that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes (NLs) as does Policy EN5 of the CDLP.

As set out in the Management Plan1, the special qualities of the [name] include the distinctive settlements and the quality architectural Cotswold vernacular.

The proposal is a small-scale residential extension within the existing plot. There is also other residential development nearby, some of which includes modern extensions and the site has limited public or private views. The proposal, as with the existing conservatory, would be an obvious modern addition. As such, while 1 Cotswolds National Landscape Management Plan 2025 – 2030 Appeal Decision 6001594 and 6001595 the proposal would respect local settlement patterns and materials, it would not enhance the NL. Nevertheless, the landscape and scenic beauty of the NL would be conserved.

While less than substantial harm has been identified to the listed building, this is nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. This harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

There would be public benefits from greater energy saving, thermal efficiency and sustainable construction associated with the works. Still, these would each be small given the scale of the scheme, as would the public benefit of any improvement to the housing stock.

The continued viable use of the appeal property as a residential dwelling is also not dependent on the appeal scheme as the building has an ongoing residential use and there is no convincing evidence that this would cease in its absence.

Consequently, I find that the public benefits do not outweigh the harm to the designated heritage asset, the conservation of which carries great weight. As such, the scheme fails to preserve the special historic interest of the listed building. It would not satisfy the requirements of the Act and paragraph 210 of the Framework. It would also fail to accord with the heritage protection aims of Policies EN2 and EN10 of the CDLP.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeals should be decided other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given above the appeals should be dismissed.