Appeal 6002549

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the replacement of an external door and the creation of a fully accessible door and the removal of a section of boundary wall at [site address] , [site address] , Tisbury [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2024/07970, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: Location plan dwg. no. 24882 – 01 [name], Plan and [name] dwg. no 24882-02-[name] and Elevations dwg. no. 24882-03 [name].

Notwithstanding the details shown on the approved plans, planning permission is not granted for the canopy roof above the new door to ‘elevation 1’ or alterations to the window to ‘elevation 2’.

The description of development provided on the planning application form referred to the application being retrospective. However, I have omitted this text from the banner heading and decision above as it does not describe an act of development.

It has been brought to my attention that, since the determination of the planning application, the Tisbury and West Tisbury Neighbourhood Plan (Tisplan2) was made in November 2025, and in particular it is Policy DB4 of the Tisplan2 which is of relevance to the appeal proposal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the host building and whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Tisbury Conservation Area.

The appeal property, [site address] , is within the Tisbury Conservation Area (CA). The significance of the CA is in part derived from the key characteristics listed in the Tisbury Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plan (TCAA). These include the use of local limestone, a vibrant and dynamic commercial core which retains important elements of historic fabric such as historic shopfronts, important individual buildings and groups of unlisted buildings which make positive contributions towards the character and appearance of the CA and a limited degree of loss of historic windows and doors.

[site address] occupies a prominent position at the end of a terraced row, which I understand has links to [name], at the junction of [address] and [address] within [site address] Character Area. It is of traditional stone construction and includes several sash windows, as well as decorative features around the main front door. While single storey in part and therefore smaller in scale than the remainder of the terrace, the building, by virtue of its age, architectural detailing and materials, nonetheless appears to be part of the adjoining terrace, and contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CA. Moreover, despite the position of the main front door, at an angle to the corner of the building, and ‘elevation 1’ of the building, set back from [site address] , which reduces their visibility in views of the front of the terrace, they are nonetheless clearly apparent in views on the approach to [site address] from the north.

The appeal relates to the replacement of the main external door to the building, the enlargement of a window to form a door and the removal of a section of boundary wall. The Council has raised no objection to the removal of the wall and based on the evidence before me I have no reason to reach a different conclusion.

The appeal submissions indicate that the former pair of double doors to the front of the building comprised a pair of simple subdued patina timber panel doors dating to the late 20th century. It is considered that the doors, together with the traditional sliding sash window openings, by virtue of their overall design and in particular the use of traditional materials, contributed positively to the overall design and form of the building and the character and appearance of the CA, despite the presence of modern fenestration in the more recent part of the building.

The application was initially made to retain the both the aluminium doors which have been installed. Even if the building was not considered to be a non-designated heritage asset, the doors, through the use of contemporary material, together with the faux glazing bars to the single door, lack compatibility with the historic context. Consequently, the doors jar with, and tangibly detract from the traditional appearance of the building and diminish the contribution it makes to the significance of the CA.

The appellant has highlighted several other buildings nearby, within the CA, which have either uPVC or aluminium double glazed windows and doors. However, I do not have full details in respect of such works, so I cannot be sure of the circumstances of these. In any case, the presence of modern windows and doors, which do not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA, does not set a precedent for the aluminium doors which have been installed. Moreover, while I recognise the benefits in relation to increased accessibility to the building, this does not appear to be directly reliant on the materials used.

The application was subsequently amended and revised drawings submitted to show both the proposed double panelled pair of doors and single door to be timber. The use of a traditional material, in lieu of aluminium, would better assimilate with the age and architectural interest of the building. In addition, the replacement of the window with a door to ‘elevation 1’ would not disrupt the sense of symmetry to the main entrance arising from the arrangement of the central door with a window to either side. While the painted timber construction of the doors is welcomed by the Council, concern remains regarding the detailing of the new single door, in particular the plain glass panel to the upper part. [name] acknowledge the preference of the Council for an alternative design, with a simple division of the glazed section of the door, having regard to the size of the door and modest scale of the glazed element, the plain glass upper half is deemed to be appropriate in this case. Therefore, taking account of the traditional material, position, general form and overall appearance, the proposed single door, would not appear uncharacteristic or at odds with the host building.

Thus, due to the sensitive design and use of traditional materials, the proposed doors would not appear as unduly discordant features or have a significant effect on the external form of this part of the building overall. Consequently, the proposals would not diminish the contribution the building makes to the significance, character and appearance of the CA.

I therefore conclude that the proposal, as amended, would not have a harmful effect on the host building and would preserve the character and appearance of the CA and would not harm its significance as a designated asset. Accordingly, it would not conflict with the aims of [name] 57 and 58 of the [name] (WCS), adopted January 2015 which seek development of a high standard of design which protects, conserves and where possible enhances the historic environment or Policy DB4 of the Tisplan2 which requires development within the CA to conserve and enhance its setting. The Council’s refusal reason also refers to Core Policy 51 of the WCS; however, it is not clear from its submissions as to how policy conflict would arise in that regard.

The amended plans submitted during the determination of the planning application also show a canopy roof above the new door and a window to elevation 2, which it is suggested has been replaced. However, both parties confirm that these elements were not applied for or considered by the Council and do not therefore form part of the appeal proposal. Consequently, these matters are to be addressed by the parties outside of the appeal process.

[address] and [address], both of which are grade II listed buildings are close to the site. I am required to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of the listed buildings. With respect to the scale and nature of the development relative to these, I am satisfied that the setting and significance of the listed buildings would not be adversely affected.

The appeal submissions indicate that the site is also within the Cranborne Chase National Landscape (NL). However, given the limited scope and extent of the proposals, they would not result in any perceptible effect on the landscape and scenic beauty of the NL.

As the proposed development differs from that which has taken place on site, conditions relating to the time period for the implementation of the development and to require compliance with the approved drawings are necessary. I have also imposed a condition to exclude the elements shown on the drawings that are not part of the proposals before me.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.