Appeal 6004669

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for ‘Demolition of the front face of the garage block and extend forward. Construct a new roof to provide ancillary accommodation to cottage. Erection of a garden shed’ at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application [name]/25/01956/HP, subject to conditions set out in the attached schedule.

The reason for refusal issued within the decision notice by the Council included policies from the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP) (2016). On 26 March the Council superseded the SWDP with the new South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (SWDPR) (2026). Policies relevant to the main issue of this proposal are subject of very limited changes, with wording largely remaining unaltered. Policy SWDP6 ([name]) is replaced by Policy SWDPR 09 ([name]) and Policy SWDP24 (Management of the [name]) is replaced by Policy SWDPR 33 (Management of the [name]). I have made my decision based on these new policies as I am required to do.

The Council does not object to the garden shed. From my site visit, this element of the proposal would assimilate to an acceptable standard with the surrounding area, where small ancillary structures in gardens of properties are largely obscured by boundary screening. Accordingly, the main issue is whether the proposed development would preserve the setting of 131 and 131a ([address]) [site address] , a [name] listed building, in accordance with S66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The appeal property comprises a detached, single storey, ancillary outbuilding, constructed in brick, under a gabled clay tile roof, with a later flat roof addition. It is located within the garden space of [site address] and used as a garage and store. The site sits behind the principal line of properties fronting [site address] and is accessed down a long driveway where a separate two-storey, ancillary, brick building (under different ownership) is also located.

Within that street facing line of properties and directly level with the appeal building is 131 and 131a [site address] ([address]), which is a [name] listed building 1(LB). It consists of a mid-18th century property, altered circa 1900 and comprises a former malt house, later converted into two dwellings. Its elevations are constructed in local stone in a mixture of both fine and rough coursed ashlar, under a matching stone roof, gable parapets and chimneys. Whilst the street facing elevation includes some decorative detailing to entrances and fine stone mullioned windows, to the rear there are a mix of simpler timber casements as well as mullioned windows, including within its two outriggers. The rear elevation includes more recent domestic extensions and alterations that have altered its former appearance.

The special interest of the LB, insofar as it relates to this appeal, is its vernacular design and historic value, which is derived from the traditional forms and materials used in its construction. As a repository of past building styles and techniques, it also has a valuable aesthetic quality within a retained agrarian village setting.

The buildings special interest and significance are also derived, in part, from its setting. Aside from views along [site address] towards the principal frontage of the LB, the rear garden, along with aspects of adjacent gardens either side and to the rear, including the appeal site, form part of the buildings setting. The appeal building is sited sideways and located directly behind the LB, presenting its narrow, gabled elevation towards it. Along with the LBs own boundary walling, outbuilding, neighbouring outbuildings and [site address] itself, this setting of the LB is contained within this immediate environment, being enclosed to some degree by these structures. Whilst the setting also extends to the Cotswolds landscape beyond, this is to less of a degree, by virtue of the screening noted above and dense evergreen trees.

The significance of the setting to the LB relates to its domestic and commercial associations with the historic settlement of Broadway, to which it formed a key component of and still functions within. Its significance is also derived in part from its semi-enclosure through the presence of built form in close quarters. This consists of largely traditional structures, in stone and brick, and at a domestic scale with incidental views out into the surrounding rural landscape.

The appeal development seeks to extend the building forwards, increase the ridge height and introduce dormers along the new roof slope. Whilst the side profile of the building would be increased when viewed from the listed building, it would still retain the appearance of a single-storey structure, with much of the new form being the gable of a roof. The proposal therefore would still read as part of a group of subservient ancillary structures in the setting of the LB, sat beyond the partial screening of the boundary wall. 1 Listed Building Entry Number 1215516

The scale and massing would not be so greatly altered that it would not retain the rural character of the setting. Moreover, it would not constitute overdevelopment and would only slightly alter the relationship of the LB with the surrounding landscape beyond. Nor would the increased scale alter the hierarchy between the LB and the appeal proposal as an ancillary outbuilding.

The design respects the architecture, form and materiality of the existing building which is in itself historic. The proposed dormer windows are of a design that are not uncommon on other buildings in the setting of the LB and would not in themselves alter the appearance of the building in such a way as to make it residential in character.

Concerns over the adequacy of the Heritage Statement are noted. However, neither the Council nor third parties set out its limitations. Following my site visit and with the aid of the listing description and Conservation Area Appraisal (CAA) I was able to form my own observations and I am satisfied that I have sufficient information and evidence to determine this appeal and its effects on setting of nearby listed buildings. Therefore, this does not alter my conclusions on the main issue.

Overall, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the setting of the adjacent [name] listed building at 131 and 131a ([address]) [site address] , as required by Sections 66(1) of the Act. The proposal would not conflict with [name] 09 and SWDPR 33 of the SWDPR and Policy BE.4 of the Broadway Neighbourhood Plan. These policies, in summary, require development proposals to conserve or enhance the significance of heritage assets, including their setting and would not be supportive of proposals that lead to substantial harm to or total loss of the significance of designated heritage.

I have identified no harm in this proposal. Therefore, in the absence of harm there is no requirement to balance harm and consider public benefits, as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

Aside from the LB at [address], subject of the main issue above, my attention has been drawn to other LBs nearby at No 121, No 139, No 141 and No 141a [site address] . These are all [name] listed2. In line with section 66(1) of the Act, I have paid special attention to the setting of these LBs. The intervisibility between the appeal site and these nearby LBs is largely obscured by other buildings and therefore the appeal site does not contribute to their setting. As such, the proposal would not harm the setting of these LBs. Nevertheless, the lack of harm in this respect does not weigh for or against the appeal and does not alter my conclusion on this main issue.

The appeal site, along with the surrounding area, including the long ribbon of properties fronting [site address] forwards of it and the paddocks and fields behind it, all fall within the Broadway Conservation Area (CA). The CA does not form part of the Council’s reason for refusing the proposed development. Nonetheless, in line with section 72(1) of the Act, I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. 2 Listed Buildings Entry Numbers: 1288142 and 1215517

The special interest and significance of the CA is largely derived from its origins as a medieval planned town, created as a commercial venture for the monastic estate of [name]. The appeal site falls within the ‘Upper [site address] Character Area’ which comprises the post medieval expansion of the village to the east. The appeal site sits behind a stretch of individual buildings sat tightly against each other and against the back of the pavement and therefore is not visible in any public views. Bearing in mind the position, nature and extent of the proposal, I consider that it would have a neutral effect on, and would therefore preserve, the character and appearance of the CA as a whole. As such, the proposal would not harm the significance of the designated heritage asset. Nevertheless, the lack of harm in this respect does not weigh for or against the appeal and does not alter my conclusion on the main issue.

The proposed development is located within the Cotswolds National Landscape (CNL) where there is a statutory duty on decision-makers to seek to further the purposes of designation. The primary purpose in respect of the CNL is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the designated area.

The site comprises a modest outbuilding within the settlement boundary of Broadway making a neutral contribution to the CNL. The proposed extensions would be of a traditional design and in sympathetic materials, not unlike other nearby brick outbuildings. Nonetheless, by reason of its limited additional height and footprint and its contained position within the curtilage of [site address] , the proposed development would preserve the natural beauty of the CNL.

I acknowledge that neighbours and the Parish Council have raised a number of concerns including in respect of neighbouring privacy, noise, wildlife and the creation of a separate dwelling through this proposal.

There is no dispute between the Council and appellant on these matters, and I have no substantive evidence before me that would lead me to an alternative conclusion. In particular, matters of privacy were resolved through amended plans during the application process, removing any windows directly overlooking neighbour properties. Moreover, measures to restrict occupation to that ancillary to [site address] is covered by condition, as are plan drawing showing the position and scale of the shed. Therefore, this does not alter my conclusions on the main issue.

I note that the appeal building has some age to it, but it is not identified as a None- Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA). As such the Council did not address the heritage of the appeal building as a material consideration. This weighs neither for nor against the scheme.

The Council has suggested a set of conditions in the event that the appeal is allowed. In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the tests within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Planning Practice Guidance PPG), and the relevant statute, and have accordingly amended the wording of certain conditions proposed by the Council without altering their aim. I have also imposed additional conditions not suggested by the Council and sought the opinion of the Council and the appellant. Neither party raised any further comments.

In addition to the standard time condition (1), I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out following the approved plans, in the interest of certainty (2). I have imposed a condition requiring the submission of materials so as to ensure the appearance does not harm the setting of the LB or the character and appearance of the CA (3).

A condition is necessary to secure details of water management in order to ensure than an appropriate sustainable drainage system is provided (4). To ensure that the development preserves the amenity of occupants of nearby properties I have imposed a condition concerning occupancy limiting it to ancillary use in connection with [site address] (5). Finally, a condition is imposed to limit windows to the south and east facing elevations in the absence of planning permission to prevent loss of privacy to neighbouring gardens (6).

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

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 2025/8/02 (Proposed ground floor plan front and rear elevations), 2025/8/03 (Proposed first floor plan, side elevations, section), 2025/8/05 (Site location plan), 2025/8/06 (Proposed garden shed) and unnumbered (Proposed block plan).

No development above ground level shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved samples.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the requirements of the [name] submitted with the application have been completed in accordance with the approved details. The water management details shall be managed and maintained thereafter in accordance with the approved Statement.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary to the residential use of the dwelling known as [site address] . The development shall not be used as an independent self-contained dwelling separate from the dwelling know as [site address]

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no windows or dormer windows shall be constructed on the north or west elevations.