Appeal 6005369

The appeal is dismissed.

An existing extension is located in the position of the proposed store room. This existing extension relates to an earlier refused planning application and was dismissed under appeal reference APP/J3720/W/25/3372248. It differs from the current proposed development by virtue of the materials to the external finish of the walls. Whilst the existing structure is clad in timber, the proposed development would be faced in white painted bricks. In all other matters, including the footprint, height, roof form and roof covering, they would be the same. The appellant has confirmed that the proposal would replace the existing extension.

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area; and • Whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Shottery Conservation Area, including the effect of the proposal on the appeal building as a non-designated heritage asset.

The site comprises a hotel with a long linear footprint, running parallel to [site address] . It consists of an earlier structure, now much altered and significantly extended. It is formed of a part two-storey, part single-storey building, with numerous hipped, gabled, crown, and cat-slide roofs, as well as dormer windows within the roof. Whilst part of the building is sat at the back of the pavement, a significant portion is set back and down from the road behind a long wall, which is interrupted only by the in-out carriage driveway at either end of the building.

[site address] falls within an Area of Restraint (AoR) as defined by Policy CS.13 of the [name] (2011 to 2031) ([name]). The lane is typical of the open nature of the wider area the policy seeks to protect, comprising a semi-rural route running into Shottery, consisting of relatively sparce and scattered built form. Other than the appeal site, this side of [site address] hosts cottages that are mostly screened and set down into a shallow and partially wooded valley. Built form is not easily visible on the immediate opposite side of the lane. Overall, the area is strongly characterised by walling and hedging that defines its linear form and verdant appearance.

The appeal development seeks to introduce a store room on the front corner of the hotel, set back and slightly down from the lane, with white painted brick walls and a red clay tile mono-pitched roof. The proposal would further increase the length of the building and reduce the openness of the frontage and the immediate section of [site address] . Moreover, it would sit proud of the adjoining section of the building, and would appear prominent both in the street scene and on a corner of the building adjacent to a wide vehicular access. It would therefore appear dominant in views of the building in both directions, but particularly when viewed obliquely through this access. Although lower in height than the adjacent section of the hotel, the boundary wall would not screen it or reduce the presence of the store room in views along [site address] in either direction.

Whilst there are existing forward-facing mono-pitched roofs along other sections of the road frontage of the appeal site, the proposed roof, is sideways on and at a less traditional (shallower) angle than these other existing mono-pitched roofs. Moreover, whilst the existing building has staggered building forms, the setting forwards of a single-story utilitarian store room would further emphasise the roof by introducing an awkward overlapping junction that would be visually distracting and incongruous. Even with matching materials, the extension would fail to assimilate with the rest of the building.

My attention has been drawn to the detached annex buildings nearby, which also have shallow roofs. However, as independent structures, their design contribution to the area is different and is not determinative to the design rationale for an extension to the principal building. A small part of the earlier building structure also appears to have had a relatively shallow roof pitch, but this is no longer present and I have little detail on its appearance. Ultimately, neither the appearance of the separate buildings has led me to an alternative conclusion on this main issue.

On my site visit, I saw the numerous extensions to the original building. Together these constitute an extensive amount of development already on the site. Whilst the proposal would be a small addition in scale and massing, it would nonetheless in combination with the existing extensions, constitute overdevelopment of the site. This cumulative impact would be particularly experienced when viewed from the lane on the approach in both directions where it would increase the overall length of the building.

The AoR does not restrict new development and there are pockets within it of denser development, including the appeal site itself. The long form of the hotel, its boundary walling and detached annex accommodation currently together limit the openness of the area. Notwithstanding the unauthorised structure in the appeal location, this space forms part of an important gap that offers views through to the wooded valley beyond and therefore contributes to the openness between the built form of the main hotel and the detached annex accommodation on the far side of the access. Therefore, the proposal would further diminish this openness and deplete the separation and visual gap between the built form.

In making my decision, I have had regard to the appeal decision reference APP/J3720/W/25/3372248. That appeal considered the existing unauthorised, timber clad store room on this site and a further kitchen extension. The Inspector, whilst finding the timber cladding to that store room to be unacceptable, also found it to occupy a conspicuous corner position. Whilst the materials now proposed are white painted brick, to match the host building, its corner position would remain conspicuous. The evidence does not therefore lead me to reach a different conclusion in respect of the store room.

Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. As such, I find conflict with [name].9, CS.13 and CS.20 of the [name], and Policies BE2 and BE5 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan (2011-2031) (Neighbourhood Plan). Amongst other things these policies require development to reflect the character and distinctiveness of the locality, be of subservient and of high quality design, and not to harm the open nature of the AoR.

The Council’s reason for refusal cites Policy CS.5 which concerns landscape. However, the decision does not make a specific case that landscape will be harmed and therefore this is not determinative in my conclusion on this main issue. Heritage assets – special interest and significance

The appeal building and the surrounding area stands within the Shottery Conservation Area (CA). The significance of the CA derives in part from its early origins as a settlement on the edge of Stratford-on-Avon, and the inclusion of notable residential buildings, including [address]. The CA’s guidance booklet notes that the appeal site falls within Area B ( [site address] ) which is characterised by its linear development of timber framed and Victorian buildings along the road. These buildings are scattered with open spaces and trees between them.

The appeal site is identified as a significant building within the CA, sitting prominent in the street scene. It is one of the areas Victorian buildings and despite being painted and extended, continues to make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole.

The appeal building is identified as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). Its composition, decorative tiled roof, tall chimneys, dormers and projecting window features, together make for a building of significant architecture. These combined elements form a building that contributes positively to the special character and street scene of the CA.

The building’s significance is mostly derived from its aesthetic value. Its traditional form is also of importance, being typical of the asymmetrical design of vernacular architecture in the locality. Heritage assets – appeal proposal and effects

The infilling of the space to the side of the host building with this extension would partially enclose the open views between built form. The appellant has noted that in the CA’s guidance booklet that the appeal site does not form part of important views or terminal features. Nonetheless, whilst not all views in the CA are formally identified, the extension would be prominent and distracting in views between buildings when passing the site, particularly in close quarters.

Views and other aspects significant to the CA were considered in the determination of other planning applications in the past on this site. However, those schemes were different from this proposed development in their location, scale and design and therefore weigh neither for nor against the scheme.

Moreover, whilst the extension would not be at odds with the linear nature of the site, and no trees would be lost, the location of the extension would be particularly noticeable in the CA. The boundary walling would only partially screen the extension and its uncharacteristic form and appearance would be unacceptably prominent in the CA.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [name].

The appeal extension is poorly positioned on the building, in a prominent location, being awkwardly set forwards from its corner and with an uncharacteristic roof. It would fail to reflect the existing architectural components of the existing building and how they relate to one another.

Whilst matching materials would be used, its location and form would be incongruous and cause considerable harm to the building on the approach to it from the public highway. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would also fail to preserve the significance of this non-designated heritage asset.

Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the NPPF) advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to their conservation. Paragraph 213 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of those assets or from development within their setting and that this should have a clear and convincing justification.

Given my findings above, and the extent of the proposed development, I find the harm to the CA be less than substantial in this instance, and at the lower end of the spectrum. This harm is nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Under such circumstances, paragraph 215 of the NPPF advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, with great weight given to the asset’s conservation.

The proposed development would include the creation of ancillary storage space in connection with improvements to the restaurant service at the hotel, thereby improving the economy of the wider business of the hotel. Moreover, it would support local visitor attractions, as well as complimentary businesses and job creation. However, the scale of those benefits would inevitably be limited by reason of the extent and nature of the proposed development. Even taken together, they would not be sufficient to outweigh the great weight that the conservation of a designated heritage asset carries.

I have also found harm to the significance of the NDHA. In taking a balanced judgement having regard to the scale of the harm and the significance of the asset, I find that the modest benefits do not outweigh the harm.

Overall therefore, I conclude that the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the [name], and would harm the significance of the appeal building as a non-designated heritage asset. The public benefits arising from the proposal would not outweigh these harms. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the requirements of Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, Policy CS.8 of the [name], Policy BE.8 of the Neighbourhood Plan, and the historic environment protection policies of the NPPF in respect of the designated and non-designated heritage assets.

The appeal site is located within the wider surroundings of three [name] listed buildings, Brookside (22, [site address] ), [address] (24, [site address] ), and the Church of [name] ( [site address] ). Mindful of the statutory duty set out in s66(1) of the Act, I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving their setting. The historic built backdrop and verdant surroundings of these buildings, of which the appeal site forms part, positively contributes to their significance. Nevertheless, given the location and extent of the proposed development, I consider that it would preserve the settings of these listed buildings and the contribution they make to their significance. I note the Council has no concerns in this regard either.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan and that there are no material considerations that indicate that the development should be determined other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.