Appeal 6002122

The appeal is dismissed. Appeal B Ref: 6002121

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are whether the proposal would preserve a [name] listed building known as “[address]” (Ref: 1340891), its special architectural features and historic interest, and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area

As the proposal is in a conservation area and relates to a listed building, 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) must be had.

The LB originated as a simple rectilinear pair of vernacular estate workers cottages built in the late 18th / early 19th century. They were extended to the side in the 20th century. At some point, they were combined into a singular dwelling, and the side extension infilled to create the current main body of the building. A conservatory approved in 19941 was added to the rear of the original cottages and had a mono-pitch roof. However, due to its poor state of repair this has been recently removed.

The functional, simplistic design of the workers cottages, although altered over time, is still visible when viewing the property, especially through the roof form and upper floor fenestration. Therefore, the significance of the LB is its age, and its core being a good example of a pair of workers cottages in a village context.

The proposal is a modern glazed extension. It would be a similar width and height to the previous conservatory utilising the same rear wall accesses but would be deeper and have a flat roof with lantern light.

The previous conservatory was not in keeping in terms of the linear form of the LB. However, the proposal would be of a larger footprint then the previous conservatory so more dominant when viewed from the sides and would further extend the footprint of the LB into a ‘T’ shape. Therefore, the proposal would be harmful to the simplistic rectilinear form of the LB.

It is recognised that planning permission and listed building consent2 has been given for the replacement of the previous conservatory and that the appellant agreed the previous conservatory was appropriate in scale, thus remaining subservient, to the LB3. However, the depth of the proposal before me would be greater than that previously existing and approved, and would be similar to that of the core of the LB. It would, therefore, be more visually apparent and dominant, and more harmful than the approved scheme.

Nevertheless, notwithstanding its size, in my mind, the more contemporary design of the proposed extension would be no more harmful than the traditional design of the previous and approved conservatories in terms of their articulation with the original building when considering historic fabric and context. However, that the design could be acceptable, does not overcome the harm the proposal would have on the footprint and form of the LB.

The appellant considers previous alterations to the LB have diluted its significance. This simply enforces that additional development must be carefully considered.

The appellant has referenced guidance from Historic England4 which discusses opportunities for change. These should not, however, be at the cost of the significance of heritage assets.

Therefore, in this instance the depth of the proposed extension would harm the significance of the LB. This would be considered less then substantial harm to the special architectural an historic interest of the LB, and when taking account of the already approved scheme, it would be at the lower end of the scale.

The LB is located towards the edge of the CA, which encompasses the core of [site address] village. This is a traditional rural Cotswold village predominantly 1 CD.7762/B and CD.7762/C 2 22/02719/FUL and 22/02720/LBC 3 paragraph 6.14 of the appellant’s statement of case 4 Paragraph 7.16 and 7.17 of the appellant’s statement of case made up of Cotswold stone properties set back behind wide verges positioned in a linear format following the main lanes through the settlement. The CA’s significance therefore derives from it being a well-maintained rural village in the Cotswold vernacular.

The LB is one of a number of properties set back from the main lane and is largely screened by mature planting. The proposal would be entirely to the rear of the LB and so not visible when passing through the village. However, the rear of the LB’s garden is reasonably open and there is open countryside beyond. Nevertheless, due to the distances involved and the orientation of the LB meaning views would be largely limited to the rear elevation, the impact of the proposal when viewed from the wider countryside would not be dissimilar to the previous and approved conservatories. Therefore, the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CA, in compliance with [name] EN4 and EN11. These policies seek to protect conservation areas and the wider historic landscape character.

Although it is found the proposal would not harm the CA this does not negate the harm identified in relation to the LB. Where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (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 appellant opines that the proposal would allow the long-term committed ownership of the property, enhance its setting, and ensure its ongoing use, upkeep, maintenance, and longevity. They also consider that the proposal would provide wider social, cultural, economic, and environmental benefits by means of its conservation-led approach to development. However, these claims have not been substantiated. Nor has the link between the ongoing use, habitability, maintenance and longevity of the LB and the proposal. Therefore, it is not found that the proposed public benefits are sufficient to outweigh the harm identified.

Further 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 identified harm, the proposal would fail to preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the LB, a [name] listed building. It would, therefore, fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act, the Framework and conflict with Policies EN1, EN2, and EN10 of the Cotswold Local Plan 2011-31. These seek, among other things, to ensure new development is of a design quality which protects, conserves, and enhances the district’s heritage assets.

It is recognised that there are other listed buildings within in the CA. However, due to their relationship with, and orientation to the appeal site, the proposal it is not found it would be within their setting.

The appeal site is in the Cotswold National Landscape. National Landscapes are designated for the purposes of conserving and enhancing natural beauty and Section 245 ([name]) of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 places a duty upon me to further these purposes in this decision. The Council did not object to the appeal scheme in this regard and I agree that due to the siting of the proposed development within a contained residential curtilage within a village, the special qualities of the National Landscape would not be adversely affected.

However, as this would constitute a lack of harm, by definition it cannot weigh for or against a proposal. This would also be the case in relation to the living conditions of neighbours.

It is the Council’s position that concerns related to protected species could be dealt with by condition. As this appeal is being dismissed, I have not pursued this matter further.

Given the above and considering all other matters raised, Appeal A and Appeal B are dismissed.