Appeal 6002746

Appeal A: the appeal is dismissed.

Appeal B: the appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site consists of the [name] listed building known as ‘ [site address] ’, which is adjacent to the [name] listed ‘[name] and [name] reaching my decisions, I have considered the statutory duties under sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 (the Act).

The appeals concern the same site and, other than internal works and works to the existing garage limited to the Listed Building Consent appeal, the same scheme. Although the remit of planning permission (Appeal A) and listed building consent (Appeal B) regimes are different, to reduce repetition, I have dealt with both appeals together in a single decision letter. Appeal Decisions 6002746 & 6002752

The main issue in both appeals is whether the proposal would preserve the listed buildings or their setting, or any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses.

[site address] is a grade II listed property1, originally a modest three bay cottage, which the submitted heritage statement2 sets out was possibly originally a public house or small coaching inn. It was listed in 1988 and has been variously extended into a substantial dwelling. It dates to the mid-18th Century and is finished in coursed rubble wall construction (of local limestone) with ashlar dressings to the window lintels and stone slate roof covering laid to random diminishing courses. There are timber and metal casement windows throughout.

The most recent extensions are a rear staircase wing added in approximately 2006 on the south side of the building in the form of a single bay gabled projection with a bull’s eye window. The originally detached garage building, now containing residential accommodation, was erected in approximately 2003, and a linking L-shaped conservatory was subsequently added in 2010.

The various additions are significant in scale and have substantially increased the footprint of the original property, which the heritage statement describes as one room deep with a short two storey outrigger projecting form the east side of the south elevation, ‘forming a very modest L shaped house.’

Given the scale of the extensions, several of which have been removed or replaced, the form of the listed building has therefore been compromised. Nevertheless, the phasing of the property is clear, and the simple small and mostly linear nature of the building’s historic core remains legible.

Based on the evidence before me, I find that the special interest of the listed building to be primarily associated with its historic and architectural interests. Important contributors in these regards which are pertinent to the appeals, are its illustration and use of traditional methods of construction and materials; the primacy and legibility of its surviving historic core and plan-form; extant historic fabric; and key historic features and detailing.

[name] (and retaining walls) is a grade II3 listed structure of ancient origin, recorded as being in existence before 1140, and listed in 1955. It is of coursed limestone rubble with ashlar dressings, an ashlar parapet and string course above 2 round arches. The old bridge was rebuilt in 1798 and no longer forms part of the public highway; the main road having been diverted.

Based on the evidence before me, I find that the special interest of the listed building to be primarily associated with its historic, architectural and engineering interest as an example of late 18th century bridge construction.

The setting of the bridge is defined by the river and road, but also the presence of the dwelling [site address] , which pre-dates the existing structure. The house also informs an understanding of the bridge’s history, given its former use as a public 1 [name]: 1053024 2 By HCUK Group July 2025 3 [name]: 1367945 Appeal Decisions 6002746 & 6002752 house or coaching inn, in addition to the close visual link in relation to the shared setting of the assets. As such, the setting of [name], including the house, makes a positive contribution to its significance.

The proposed works and development would result in a single storey extension to the rear elevation, providing a living room accessible from the existing entrance hall. This extension would be clad in stone to match the existing building, with the linking element clad in larch boards with a dark grey zinc roof.

Further works are also proposed to the garage building, adding two dormers to both the front and rear elevations (replacing existing roof lights) and replacing the garage door with a window. Additionally, a short brick wall to the front is proposed, along with the installation of two EV charging points and the restoration of a water pump at the front of the house.

The single storey extension would require a new opening within the south wall of the central ground floor room and the removal of a section of late 19th century wall to the kitchen / former coach house and granary. There would therefore be some, albeit modest, loss of historic fabric.

The extension would also result in a significant addition to the building, both by virtue of its substantial width but also its addition to the depth of the property. By virtue of its part use of contemporary materials, it would be clearly visually distinct from the historic elements of the existing property, and the phasing would remain apparent. However, it would further extend the historically and architecturally modest 'one room deep with short two storey outrigger' property into a much larger and almost two room deep plan form. The original plan form and general linear character would be obscured.

Furthermore, when viewed from the rear, in addition to the irregular pattern of fenestration, the extension, by virtue of its mixed materials and roof forms, would also result in an awkward, convoluted and complicated appearance. It would not be sensitive to the generally simple architectural form of the historic building.

At present, whilst internally the garage building is used as additional residential accommodation space, I observed that it retains the appearance of a separate garage building. The addition of dormers and the replacement of the garage door with a window would result in the garage projection appearing as an addition or extension to the residential element of the property.

Given its projection and siting forward of the front elevation of the dwelling, it would not appear subservient and would again diminish the simple original form of the dwelling. The proposals would again result in the original core being lost and overwhelmed, and in combination with the rear extension, the legibility of the host building would be somewhat lost and overwhelmed by the scale of additions.

Whilst the vast majority of the floorspace of the dwelling is already contained within the enlargements to the historic core, more additions on this scale would further diminish the importance of the historic building and the hierarchy of spaces within it. The legibility of its surviving historic core and plan-form would be difficult to appreciate. Appeal Decisions 6002746 & 6002752

I conclude that the proposed works and development would fail to preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the [name] listed building [site address] and would harm its significance as a designated heritage asset.

Given the existing additions to the property, I find the harm to the heritage asset to be a minor level of ‘less than substantial’.

The above harm to significance would result in some residual harmful effect to the way [name] is experienced. In this respect therefore, I find that the proposal would not preserve the setting of [name] and would also harm the significance of this designated heritage asset.

Given the siting of the majority of the proposals, I find the harm to this heritage asset to again be a minor level of ‘less than substantial’, but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight.

There are aspects of the scheme that would be of public benefit. It is proposed to restore a well and pump to the north side of the building. The submitted heritage statement illustrates that this historic feature was present on the 1899-1922 [name]. Its restoration would sustain and enhance the listed building. However, it is not established that the works and development proposed are necessary for this restoration and as such, this carries a modest weight in favour of the scheme.

Similarly, it is not demonstrated that the general improvements proposed to the landscaping around the property is dependent on the proposal, as are the sustainability improvements related to the EV charging points. As such, these benefits also carry individually and cumulatively a modest weight in favour of the scheme.

The scheme would necessitate the replacement of two existing windows with a differing design of the same materials. As such this does not constitute a heritage benefit.

There would however be some economic benefits brought about through the investment into the property and the construction phase. Also, social benefits would be gained through improvements to the local housing stock.

Given the scale of the works and development, any benefits from improved thermal performance, ventilation and general improved accommodation are each likely to be small. There is no substantive evidence before me that the continued viable use of the existing substantial property is reliant on the proposal. This carries little weight in favour of the proposals.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicates that, when considering the impact on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. On balance, in giving considerable importance and weight to the harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets, I find that this would not be outweighed by the public benefits that the proposal would generate.

Consequently, the harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets in these appeals has not been supported by clear and convincing justification. The works and development would not preserve the [name] listed building Folly Appeal Decisions 6002746 & 6002752 Bridge nor the setting of [name] and [name]. The works and development therefore would conflict with the statutory presumptions set out in sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Act and fail to satisfy the historic environment conservation and enhancement policies of the Framework. There is also conflict with Policies OS2, OS4, and EH11 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 (2018) (LP) insofar as these collectively requires high quality design that conserves or enhances the historic built environment, including the special architectural or historic interest of the building fabric, character and setting.

LP Policy H6 is also referenced, however this relates to alterations and extensions to existing dwellings respecting the character of the surrounding area, and so is not determinative in this instance.

The submitted preliminary ecological appraisal and bat emergence survey4 identifies that whilst no bats were recorded within the garage, evidence of bats within the building was found, with a maternity roost likely present to the east of the main house.

The document set out that works to the building can only commence once the [name] (EPS) licence has been granted by Natural England. Given that the maternity roost location (and mostly used access features) can be retained, compensation measures are not considered necessary.

Mitigation measures are set out in part 4.1.2 of the bat emergence survey. From what I have observed and from what has been submitted, were I minded to allow the appeal, I am satisfied that subject to suitable conditions (in addition to the EPS license requirement) the biodiversity qualities of the site would be conserved. Accordingly, I find no conflict with the biodiversity protection and enhancement goals of the Framework.

It is noteworthy the Council have raised no objection to this matter.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeals should both be dismissed.