Appeal 6004409

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs has been made by [name] and [name] against Wiltshire Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

Upon review of the submitted appeal, it was found that the application had not been advertised as affecting the setting of a listed building. The necessary site and press notice were subsequently published with 21 days for representations to be made. The council has confirmed that no representations were received.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, including whether the proposed development would preserve the setting of the nearby [name] listed building, [name] and [name].

The settlement of Eastcourt comprises a number of dwellings set along two unmarked country lanes. There is a mix of dwelling types and sizes although a predominance towards large, detached properties set within extensive grounds. The locality is rural in character with many mature trees, hedgerows and planting forming part of the street scene.

The appeal site comprises a residential barn conversion. The original stone building retains significant character with various extensions providing enlarged accommodation. An enclosed patio / garden area has been supplemented by a paddock which has been converted to an expansive residential garden serving the property and now houses a lawn and planted borders with an in-ground swimming pool, shed and heat pump / plant. All of the property’s private amenity space is located to the front of the dwelling where the proposed outbuilding would be sited.

The largest component of the proposed development, the pool room, would be primarily glazed to its three elevations thereby lessening the perception of bulk. However, its gable roof structure would be substantial, continuing beyond the pool room to also serve the bike store and covered outdoor kitchen area. Extending across the rear of the parking courtyard and central part of the garden where the ground levels drop, the building would have two floor levels and a mono pitched roof.

The bin store, bike store, garden store and plant area would consolidate and replace existing small-scale structures within the site. At present, the bins are located to the parking area, with gas tank concealed by shrubbery and three sheds at the boundary of the upper patio / garden area where the ground level steps down into the former paddock. Those existing structures are of an appropriate scale to support the residential use of the site and have very limited visual impact even taking into account their cumulative impact. The consolidated building introduces significantly greater height, depth and width. The proposed arrangement emphasises the change in ground level where the garden store backs onto the plant area and then utilises the lower ground level to obtain the height for the pool room which maintains the overall ridgeline.

The use of concrete plain tiles to match that of the host dwelling would be visually compatible but would not lessen the complexity and scale of the roofscape. The covered kitchen area would be closest to the main dwelling and would use matching natural local stone for the end elevation, contributing positively to the integration of the development within the site. The use of timber cladding to the remainder of the building would represent an acceptable local material in principle however, the scale of its use would be visually dominant and a contrast from the stone dwelling, thereby reinforcing the visual impact.

Boundary treatments comprise a dry-stone wall and substantial evergreen hedge which retains privacy to the garden from the adjoining public highway and screens the lower level of the nearby listed farmhouse and neighbouring [address]. The single storey nature of the proposed building would ensure that the substantial boundary would effectively prevent the development from being visible within the public realm. However, views from at least one upper-level window at [address] include the appeal site as a prominent component of the wider sight range. In such views, regardless of its overall height being less than neighbouring buildings, the outbuilding would be visually dominant and out of keeping next to its host dwelling. Moreover, landscaping cannot be relied on in perpetuity to retain the same level of screening as at present.

The Crudwell Design Guide (at Appendix 1 of the made Crudwell Neighbourhood Plan 2019 – 2026) sets out that the local vernacular comprises simple form buildings, which is consistent with traditional ancillary farm buildings. The proposed development would be contrary to this approach with an irregular shape and complex design resulting from the combination of multiple functions within the one structure.

Taking into account the historical context of ancillary farm buildings, the character of the host dwelling, the complex, albeit functional design and positioning of the outbuilding and its use of materials, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires special regard to be given to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting. Alongside this, paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (NPPF) requires great weight to be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets. Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through development within the setting of a heritage asset and that such development should have a clear and convincing justification.

The Malthouse Farmhouse and [name] (hereafter ‘the listed farmhouse’) lies to the south of the site. It is a grade II listed building. The special interest and significance of the listed building, in part, derives from its historic and architectural interests. Important contributors include its age, the use of traditional materials and building methods and its prominent scale within the village.

Pertinent to the appeal, in relation to the settings of the listed buildings and the contribution they make to the special interest and significance of assets, I have had regard to the definition of setting within the NPPF. The NPPF confirms that the setting of a heritage asset comprises the surroundings in which the asset is experienced. Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) goes on to confirm that the contribution that setting makes to the significance of a heritage asset does not depend on there being public rights of way or an ability to otherwise access or experience that setting.

The area surrounding the listed farmhouse is made of open countryside and some built form, including former agricultural buildings. There is some intervisibility between the appeal site and listed building, located across the lane. By reason of its position and the former use of the appeal property, a possible historic functional connection exists. While it is evident that the two sites are now severed from one another, the surrounding area, which includes the appeal site, forms the asset’s setting. It makes a positive contribution to the asset’s special interest and significance.

As a result of its position, scale and design, the proposed development would comprise a more complex arrangement than is presently the case. Its siting would interrupt and confuse the relationship and possible historic connection between the farmhouse and the former barn. Although the appeal property has been modified in the past, losing its historic use, it retains an agrarian character. The proposed development would compromise this. It would have a harmful urbanising effect and diminish the ability to appreciate the significance of the listed building, weakening the contribution that the setting makes to the significance of the heritage asset.

For the above reasons, there would be harm to the setting of the listed building albeit localised and limited in scale. In line with NPPF terminology, the harm would be less than substantial, at the lower end of the spectrum. Nevertheless, this harm must be given considerable importance and weight. In such cases, the NPPF requires the harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

Public benefits arising from this development would be minimal, relating principally to the short-term economic activity of the construction. The use of the proposed building relates to the private activity of the appellant. As such, no clear and convincing justification has been provided in favour of the proposed development that would outweigh the harm identified.

Given the above, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the site and surrounding area and would fail to preserve the setting of the [name] listed [name] and [name]. This would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act, and conflict with [name] 57 and 58 of the [name] (2015) and Policy DD2 of the made Crudwell Neighbourhood Plan 2019 – 2026. These policies, in summary, seek to secure a high standard of design in all new development, demonstrating a complementary approach to the local context, specifically the vernacular of Crudwell Parish, and preservation of heritage assets.

Furthermore, the development would not accord with the approach to achieving good design as set out in [name] of the Wiltshire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) or Chapter 16 of the NPPF.

I have been directed to a recently approved extension at the nearby property of Green Acres. I have limited details of the site before me, including its planning history. However, it is evident that this relates to an extension to a purpose-built dwelling rather than an outbuilding and the development is not positioned between the host dwelling and the listed farmhouse. Thus, it is not directly comparable with the scheme before me and neither does it provide a precedent for the harm which would result from the proposed development.

The appellant has made reference to a lack of communication from the council during the planning application process. However, this is not a matter that has altered my conclusions.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.