Appeal 6001739

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The Council’s officer report refers to a [name] listed building known as ‘Lockup approximately 20 metres north east of Church of [name] the Great’. The Council did not identify any harm in respect of the effect of the appeal scheme on the significance of that heritage asset. On the evidence before me, including my own observations, I see no reason to conclude otherwise.

The Council’s evidence did not raise concerns about the proposed pitched dormer on the front roof slope, replacement pitched roofed porch and new natural stone, front boundary wall. Subject to suitable conditions I am satisfied that these elements of the proposal would be acceptable in the event of the appeal being allowed.

In light of the above, the main issues are: • whether the proposed rear extension and outbuilding extension would preserve the setting as it relates to the special interest of the nearby grade II* listed building, known as ‘Church of [name] the Great’ (Ref: 1053074) (the Church) and the extent to which it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Stonesfield Conservation Area (the CA); and • the effect of the proposal on the significance of [site address] as a non-designated heritage asset.

The Church dates from the 13th century with 14th, 15th and 19th century alterations and a vestry of 1956. It comprises coursed limestone rubble, squared and coursed limestone and is partly cement rendered, with ashlar dressings. It has a square, crenelated tower with louvred belfry openings and a Tudor arched window with chamfered reveals and returned hood mould. The historic context of this building would have been as a focal point for religious worship in a rural village setting. The current context in which it is experienced comprises a mix of historic and more modern buildings but remains a prominent feature at the historic heart of the rural village.

Given the above, I find that the setting of the building, insofar as it relates to this appeal and its special interest, to be primarily associated with its visual prominence within the village and its historic association as a building at the centre of rural village life. Views of the Church from its graveyard and from [site address] and [address] contribute in a meaningful way to its significance.

The CA covers an area encompassing the historic core of the village. It has a rural character in light of its concentration of stone buildings set within a rural landscape. The Church is a key feature within the CA and makes a positive contribution to its character and appearance. [site address] (the House) occupies a prominent position on [site address] , in close proximity to the Church. It also contributes positively to the CA as a modest, vernacular house fronting onto an area of open space within the historic core of the village. Given the above, I find that the significance of the CA, insofar as it relates to this appeal, to be primarily associated with the prevalence of its historic stone buildings with slate roofs and views of the Church.

The proposed two storey extension would be visible from the Church graveyard in the vicinity of its front porch. From there, the existing rear dormer window on the rear roof slope of the House would be replaced by the rear gable of the proposed extension. This would bring the first floor building line closer to the Church. Nonetheless, a good degree of setback from the graveyard boundary would remain. Moreover, subject to conditions to secure use of suitable materials, the rear extension would not appear out of place in this view, forming part of the mix of village buildings that surround the church at relatively close proximity. Consequently, I am not persuaded that it would be so prominent as to detract from the setting of the Church as experienced in the graveyard.

However, the proposed rear extension would be visible from [site address] in views from the direction of [address] towards the Church. From there, the church tower is currently visible to the rear of the House. Whereas the proposed rear extension would noticeably cut into that view, reducing the ability to appreciate the significance of the Church. As the harm would affect limited viewpoints, the degree of harm would be at the lower end of less than substantial.

As reasoned above, visibility of the Church from within the CA also makes a positive contribution to the character of the CA. Accordingly, the infringement of the proposed rear extension on views of the Church from [site address] /[address] would also harm the character and appearance of the CA. The degree of harm to the CA as a whole would be at the lower end of less than substantial.

Given the above, I find that the proposal would not only harm the special interest of the LB but also the significance of the CA. Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the Framework) advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of those assets and that any such harm should have a clear and convincing justification.

As reasoned above, I find the harm to the designated heritage assets to be less than substantial in this instance but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimal viable use.

The proposal to improve the front boundary wall of the appeal site would have a small beneficial effect on the setting of the Church and the character and appearance of the CA. The proposal would improve the living space for occupants of the House and provide increased space through creation of the annexe. This would be largely a private benefit for the current occupants. Given the scale of the works and that it relates to a single house, the extent to which it would represent a public benefit in the form of an improvement to local housing stock would be limited.

Therefore, I do not find that the public benefits are sufficient to outweigh the harm that I have identified in this instance. I also note that the continued viable use of the appeal property as a residential dwelling is not dependent on the proposal as the building has an ongoing residential use that would not cease in its absence.

Given the above and in the absence of public benefits that would outweigh the harm that would be caused, I conclude that, on balance, the proposal would fail to preserve the setting as it relates to the special historic interest of the [name]* listed building, and that the character or appearance of the CA would be neither conserved nor enhanced.

This would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act, paragraph 210(a) of the Framework and conflict with policies OS2, OS4, H6, EH9, EH10, EH11, EH12 and EH16 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 (September 2018). These seek, among other things, to ensure that developments are designed to achieve high quality design and respect the character of their surroundings including the historic environment.

[site address] (the House) is two storey and is thought to date from the 17 th and 18th centuries. It is clad in roughcast render with a slate roof. The main part of the house has a simple form, with a pitched roof and side facing gables. It has a modest porch to the front and the footprint is extended to the rear by a single storey lean-to extension. Within its spacious rear garden are a number of outbuildings. This includes the single storey stone outbuilding attached to a larger neighbouring building that is proposed to be extended. This has a subservient, functional appearance relative to the main house, in light of its modest scale, absence of windows on its side elevations, and its low rise, wooden doors.

Given the above I find that the significance of [site address] as a non-designated heritage asset is derived from its prominence on [site address] as a vernacular house, its simple form and modest outbuildings. Its historic proximity to the Church and views of the Church through the appeal site also contribute to its significance.

The appellant is of the opinion that the proposal would be beneficial because it would remove an unsympathetic ground floor rear extension with one that has been designed to be sympathetic through its materials, detailing and form. Also, that it would reveal a greater proportion of the historic rear elevation of the House. In addition, that the proposal would result in only limited loss of historic fabric, including elements of the rear elevation and roof at first floor level. Nonetheless, the proposed rear extension would comprise a substantial two storey addition in place of a modest single storey lean-to extension. As such, it would be considerably taller than the existing rear extension and would extend further into the rear garden. At roof level, the existing modest rear dormer window would be replaced by a substantial cross wing extension. Consequently, the proposed extension would appear bulky relative to the main house, dominating the rear elevation and considerably reducing the ability to appreciate the simplicity of form of the existing building.

In addition, the unassuming single storey outbuilding would be extended with the addition of a shower room and kitchen. This would also involve the addition of a window and door to its side elevations. The increased size of this outbuilding and the addition of windows and doors would result in an unduly domesticated appearance. It would also unbalance the relationship with the main house, appearing as separate residential accommodation rather than subservient, storage space. This would harm the significance of the non-designated heritage asset.

Paragraph 216 of the Framework advises that a balanced judgement is required having regard to the scale of any harm and the significance of non-designated heritage assets. Whilst improvements to its front boundary wall would amount to a small benefit to the significance of the House, I find that the scale of the rear extension and the outbuilding extension would harm its significance overall.

Therefore, the proposal would conflict with Policy EH16 of the Local Plan which seeks to avoid harm to non-designated heritage assets and requires a balanced judgment, taking into account the significance of the asset and the scale of harm and its benefits.

Given the above and considering all other matters raised, the appeal should be dismissed.