Appeal 6002582

The appeal is dismissed.

As the planning appeal relates to a proposal within the grounds of a listed building which is also located within a conservation area, sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (The Act), require me to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its settings or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses; and to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area.

In 2014 planning permission was granted for an annexe building in the north eastern part of the grounds of [site address] . A subsequent application successfully removed the ancillary condition on the annexe after it was built, allowing the grounds of [site address] to be subdivided to create a separate planning unit for what is now known as “[address]”.

In 2023 planning permission was granted for the erection of a detached residential annexe in the north-western corner of the grounds of [site address] , and to be tied to it. A re-submission of the 2023 application saw the annexe mirrored on the site. A condition was imposed stating that “The additional residential accommodation hereby permitted shall be occupied only as accommodation ancillary and incidental to the existing dwelling on the site and shall not be occupied or used separately, and no separate curtilage shall be created.”

The appeal proposal before me seeks to make the already approved annexe building into an independent market dwelling with the creation of its own curtilage, separate from the remaining grounds of [site address] . It would occupy the same site as the consented annexe scheme.

I saw on my site visit that the building was under construction. It is single storey with accommodation in part of the roof space. The floorplans show it to be spacious, offering a living room, kitchen/diner, a large snug, and upstairs in the roof a study and large bedroom with dressing room and ensuite bathroom.

The main issues in this appeal are whether the proposal would i) preserve the [name] listed building known as Ashbrook House1 or its setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, and ii) preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Blewbury Conservation Area.

The official listing describes [site address] as a two storey dwelling dating from the mid-18th century with later alterations. It has an old plain-tile roof and is red brick, but with elevations to the rear, the road and side elevations in grey brick with red brick dressings. A 3-window main range faces the garden with a central door with stone architrave surround and stone Doric porch and 16-pane horned sashes to all openings. The building was formally listed as [name].

The Blewbury Conservation Area Appraisal (the BCAA) makes several references to [site address] and of it being an ancient site. Evidence based on its plot size, extensive grounds, the presence of fishponds, and that the foundations of an Anglo-Saxon house have been discovered in the grounds, indicate it may have been an early high-status house. This is further evidenced in the BCAA with reference to the number of hearths in the property for which tax was paid and where [site address] is recorded as having paid tax for 10 hearths, indicating it was a large and wealthy house at the time. There is also suggestion that [site address] was the manor house for the [name], one of three manor holdings in the village. [site address] and its grounds therefore have long historic associations with the village.

From the submitted evidence and my observations, the special interest and significance of the listed building, insofar as it relates to this appeal, are largely derived from its archaeological, architectural and historic interests as an example of a higher status rural vernacular dwelling (former farmhouse), possibly a manor house, in a prosperous rural village. The building’s age, surviving historic fabric, and use of traditional construction and materials make important contributions in this regard.

Pertinent to the appeal, special interest and significance also stem in part from the setting of the listed building. Setting of a heritage asset is defined in the Glossary of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) as “The surroundings in which the heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as an asset and its surroundings evolve. Elements of a setting may make a positive or negative contribution to the significance of an asset, may affect the ability to appreciate that significance, or may be neutral.”

The dwelling is sited close to the edge of [site address] , one of the main peripheral roads around the village, although as described above its principal 1 National Heritage List for England: list entry number 1368614 elevation faces eastwards towards the extensive gardened area. The long brick boundary wall to the garden runs along the street for some distance. The building is hence seen and experienced as part of the street scene and wider rural village setting, and its design, size and visual prominence are indicative of its higher status.

The building also sits within a spacious, simply landscaped extensive grounds of lawn, mature shrubs and trees, with a large central pond. There are flower beds closer to the house and a raised rectangular lawn alongside the boundary wall with the road, which is raised up from the path and surrounding beds and appears to align with former buildings shown on the Tithe maps (see below). Between the house and the raised lawn is a gated gravel drive and turning area. The gravelled area also forms part of a raised terrace in front of the principal elevation, with stone balustrading around and steps leading down to the main lawns and pond. From the grounds, [site address] and its principal elevation, are clearly seen and its special interest and significance is appreciated. These wider and immediate settings positively contribute to the special interest and significance of the listed building, from which its heritage merit can be experienced.

The way in which an asset is experienced in its setting is also influenced by other factors such as an understanding of the historic relationship between the spaces and places around it. Map regression from both the appellant’s Heritage Statement and the BCAA2 (which use slightly different dated maps) help reveal some of the evolution of the site. The BCAA 1805 Enclosure award map and the later Tithe maps3 show [site address] having a smaller curtilage than it does now. The adjacent parcel included land to the north of the house, broadly where the rectangular lawn, annexe building and pond are now, and is shown with a number of buildings. On the eastern side of the stream, where [address] is now, land was in a number of separate parcels to properties off [name] towards the centre of the village, and off [address]. By the late 1870s4 former buildings and land from adjacent plots had been incorporated into the grounds of [site address] , as well as some of the plots on the eastern side of the stream and pond, to create large and extensive grounds. This situation remained largely unchanged for the next hundred years or so, as shown on the appellant’s [name] of 1968, and continued until the more recent granting of the planning permission for [address] and subsequent creation of a separate planning unit, as already described above. Hence, the extensive grounds, the pond and the rectangular raised lawn now form part of the setting of the listed building and help in the understanding of the heritage asset and its evolution over time.

The appeal site is located in the far north western corner of the grounds some 46 metres from the main house, on what was historically one of the separate land parcels. As it is currently presented, it is more tucked away behind trees and shrubs with a more ancillary function with a storage shed, rather than part of the more formal areas of the grounds. Nonetheless, the site forms part of the amalgamated grounds and general vista when looking from the house across the rectangular lawn and along the adjacent footpath, and the new dwelling is clearly visible. From the appeal site, there are views back across the lawns to the house. Even if the appeal site does not contribute to the setting of [site address] to the 2 The historic maps in [name] of the BCAA 3 Appellant’s 1838 [name] and Map 3 of the BCAA - 1848 [name] 4 Map 4 of the BCAA – First edition OS map 25 inch 1876/77 same degree as the more open and formal areas, the pond and rectangular lawn, it nonetheless contributes in a positive and tangible way to the heritage asset’s special interest and to understanding the site’s narrative over time and hence to its significance as a dwelling of prominence within the village.

The building is also located within Blewbury Conservation Area (BCA), within character Area 2, which has a rural character on the edge of the village, where curtilages back onto the central area of the village and houses front directly onto the highway. The village has Anglo-Saxon origins and is mentioned in the [name] and had three manors. The surrounding rural hinterland with favourable agriculture is reflected in the size and wealth of houses in the village. There are a variety of buildings of different ages, ranging from the 16th century to the present day, and of different designs and sizes, built with a palette of local building materials, including cob, brick, exposed timber framing, and roofs of plain tiles, slate and thatch. The Blewbury Neighbourhood Development Plan (the Neighbourhood Plan) describes that much of Blewbury’s charm and character derives from its ring of roads, originally with cottages either side, around a core of paddocks, orchards and ponds, interlaced by streams and footpaths. The village layout has not much changed and I saw that it remains similar to that shown on the [name] of 17615. The village was on the coaching route between London and Wantage until that was curtailed by the arrival of the railway nearby. By the end of the 19th century its peaceful character and proximity to London made Blewbury popular with artists and writers, including [name], [name] and [name].

Given the above, the character and appearance and thus special interest and significance of the BCA, insofar as it relates to this appeal, is derived principally from the preservation and legibility of the village’s historic street pattern and relationship with open spaces, undeveloped open land and garden areas, the architectural richness, variety and number of historic buildings, use of local traditional building and roofing materials, which reflect the social and economic evolution and growth of Blewbury as well as the changes in building techniques and styles within its agrarian surroundings.

Consequently [site address] , with its large undeveloped open garden and long imposing boundary wall, is an important component of the [site address] , the wider village townscape, as well as an integral part of the history of Blewbury. [site address] is also close to an identified “important view” of mature trees as a focal point at the junction of [site address] and [address]. With its heritage merit as well as its aesthetic charm, [site address] positively contributes to the character and appearance of the conservation area as a whole, and to an understanding of the village’s historic evolution, and thereby to its significance as a designated heritage asset.

The principle of a building for residential use, albeit as an annexe, within the grounds of [site address] has already been established by the Council’s grant of planning permission. However, creating a separate curtilage for what would be a market dwelling would bring changes to the relationship and function between the proposed dwelling and the host dwelling, [site address] . 5 Map 1 in [name] of the BCAA

The building’s simple external design, location and distance in relation to [site address] help it read as an ancillary outbuilding, including from the road where the roof is visible above the top of the roadside boundary wall, which is not an uncommon sight. From within the wider grounds and from the opposite side of the fish pond, the new building is partly screened by existing trees and shrubs. The plans for the approved annexe show no proposed landscaping of the land in front of, or near to, the annexe as family members using it would share the wider grounds of [site address] . However, the subdivision of the grounds to put a separate dwelling would diminish the subserviency of the building to [site address] .

Occupiers of the separate dwelling, who would be unrelated to occupiers of [site address] , would likely want to consider privacy and security and the erection of some more substantial forms of privacy screens and boundary demarcation. The submitted plans are annotated to indicate “low level planting to water line to define boundary between trees - no fencing proposed”. This would be unlikely to provide adequate privacy, screening and security, even though future occupiers would be aware of the situation. There would therefore be an increased likelihood of future occupiers wanting to erect more substantial and effective privacy and security screens. The plans also show a hedge proposed along the access path and rectangular lawn, but this would take time to grow before it provided existing and future occupiers with mutual privacy.

I could impose a condition restricting the erection of various boundaries and forms of enclosure around the new dwelling. However, I am of the view this would be an unrealistic and unacceptable scenario in light of the functional change that would occur between the two buildings. Planning permission runs with the land such that it is an independent planning unit and there is no mechanism to control who occupies it and the changes in the functional relationship that would arise.

Vehicular access to the annexe would involve sharing the existing gated access off [site address] and the gravelled parking/turning area with [site address] . To get to the front door of the new building would be similar to the arrangements for the building as an annexe, namely walking almost 50 metres along the path that runs between the raised lawn and flower beds/garden that would remain as part of the grounds of [site address] .

As an annexe for family members this arrangement would be acceptable due to the ancillary relationship and function between the two buildings and groups of related occupiers. For unrelated occupiers in the market dwelling this would be different. Whilst sharing access points, driveways and turning areas is not uncommon, the lack of separate vehicular access to the new dwelling and a pedestrian access through a third party garden would likely put pressure on the creation of a separate access, even if the matter was subject to a separate application and later consideration.

Furthermore, the proposed curtilage for the new dwelling would exclude the rectangular lawn area that sits between the north elevation of [site address] and the new dwelling, effectively leapfrogging over it. This would be an awkward contrivance when the curtilage to the new house would include the path that runs alongside the lawn. This would leave [site address] with a lawn that would be somewhat isolated from it and surrounded by curtilage for the new dwelling. This would further erode the legibility [site address] .

The erection of [address] has already resulted in the subdivision of the grounds to [site address] . I saw that this sits on land that once formed a number of separate plots excluded from [site address] on the other side of the stream. The stream forms a physical boundary and the property has its own separate access point and drive on the far side of the stream. [address] thus reads and relates to [site address] in a very different manner and does not erode the grounds and setting of [name] in the way the appeal proposal would. Whilst there is a condition restricting the erection of boundary enclosures, the distance of [address] and its orientation to [site address] mean the two properties have very different functional relationships, and at the time the Council considered there would be no adverse impact on amenity as it was sufficiently distanced away from neighbouring dwellings. Nonetheless, [address] has reinforced my view that further subdivision of the grounds of [site address] in the manner proposed would be harmful.

Whilst the grounds of [site address] have historically involved the integration of separate parcels of land, the proposed subdivision to create two separate dwellings on the site would reduce the primacy of the heritage asset, [site address] . The new curtilage would also be contrived around part of the more formal garden area of the host dwelling. Even if the appeal site does not contribute as much to the asset’s significance as the expansive lawns, fishpond and the rectangular lawn, the proposal would nonetheless diminish the authenticity of the heritage asset. Consequently, the setting of the listed building would not be preserved and thus the special interest and significance of the listed building would be harmed.

In terms of the effect of the proposal on the conservation area, there would be no noticeable change to the street scene and the visual setting of both buildings on [site address] . Nonetheless, [site address] is an integral and important element of the character and appearance of the BCA and to the understanding of the village’s growth and evolution. The subdivision of its grounds and the disruption of the primacy of [site address] would diminish the heritage interest, whether publicly visible or not, and would in turn diminish the contribution it makes to the BCA. As a result the proposal would also fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the BCA as a whole and would result in some residual harm to its significance.

Overall, I find the proposal would fail to preserve the setting of the [name] listed building [site address] and would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the BCA and would thus harm their significance. As a result the proposal would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the relevant provisions of the Framework. The proposal would also conflict with Policies DP36 and DP38 of the Local Plan 2031 Part 2 and Policy P7 of the Neighbourhood Plan. Collectively these seek, amongst other things, to ensure new development is sensitive to its historic context, is subordinate to historic buildings and does not cause harm to the character or significance of any heritage asset.

The appellant has drawn my attention to the subdivision of Carramores, a [name] listed building with a sizeable garden and curtilage located in Area 1 of the BCA and closer to the centre of the village. From the submitted evidence, that proposal involved the creation of a separate curtilage around an existing outbuilding that was to be converted to a dwelling, in the far south western part of the garden. The subdivision of that curtilage would not involve leapfrogging over garden that would remain for the host dwelling, unlike with the appeal proposal. It therefore has a different context and is not directly comparable to the appeal proposal before me, nor does it set a precedent for plot subdivision. In any event, I must determine the appeal based on its own merits and the particular context and circumstances before me.

The Framework states that heritage assets are an irreplaceable resource. Paragraphs 212 and 213 of the Framework state that when considering the impact of development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification.

In finding harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, Framework paragraphs 214 and 215 require the magnitude of that harm to be assessed. Given the nature and extent of the proposal against the advice in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance I find the harm to both the significance of the listed building and the BCA would be towards the lower end of ‘less than substantial’. Even so, a finding of ‘less than substantial’ harm still carries considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires the harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

There have been some associated short-term economic benefits from jobs and the supply chain during the construction phase of the building, which is still being built. There would be some modest longer-term spending by future occupiers, at least some of which would likely be spent in the local area and support for local services and facilities. The proposed dwelling would have solar panels installed, which has the potential to reduce energy consumption and help towards reducing national carbon emissions.

The dwelling would be within the main built up area of Blewbury, which is a ‘larger village’ identified for housing. Whilst a single dwelling would modestly contribute to the council’s housing supply in a sustainable location, I am not aware the Council is unable to demonstrate a 5 year supply of deliverable housing land or that there is an unmet housing need.

The proposal would not involve physical alterations to the listed building itself. Nonetheless, in my view the public benefits would be limited and would not amount to public benefits sufficient to outweigh the considerable importance and great weight I attach to the harm that would be caused to the designated heritage assets. Furthermore, there is no substantive evidence as to why the annexe needs to be made into a separate dwelling and planning unit, or that the grounds need to be divided up as proposed. I find that clear and convincing justification for the harm to the significance of the heritage assets has not been provided.

Accordingly, the proposal would fail to preserve the setting of the [name] listed building, [site address] , and would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Blewbury Conservation Area.

I am also mindful of the duty under section 66(1) of the Act to have special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of a listed building nearby. The Council has provided the listing for [address] and Baker’s Cottage6. This is a [name] listed timber-framed building, now two dwellings, dating from the mid-17th century. It is on the other side of [site address] , with its gable end facing the street and the garden boundary wall of [site address] . Its significance is largely derived from its architectural and historic interest as well as from its group value as part of the wider street scene of [site address] and the part of the wealth of historic buildings in Blewbury, although it lies outside the boundary of the BCA. Given the nature and extent of the appeal proposal, I consider that the setting of [address] and [address] would be preserved, and their significance would not be harmed. The Council has raised no concerns in this regard.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.