Appeal 6005940

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of [site address] building with the remaining land to be incorporated into the garden of [address] and Nindfield at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/02166/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

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 drawings: location plan, SK1A and SK01 rev E.

Any contamination that is found during the course of the development hereby permitted that was not previously identified shall be reported immediately to the local planning authority. Development on the part of the site affected shall be suspended until a risk assessment has been carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Where unacceptable risks are found, the development shall not resume or continue until remediation and verification schemes have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

The South Worcestershire Development Plan Review (the SWDPR 2026) was adopted by the Council on 25 March 2026 and replaces, in full, the South Worcestershire Development Plan, 2016 (the SWDP 2016). This appeal was received before the adoption of SWDPR 2026 and as such, at that time it was emerging policy and Policies from the SWDP 2016 were referred to in the decision notice.

I have received copies of the relevant adopted SWDPR 2026 policies and both main parties have had an opportunity to comment on them. I have, therefore, determined the appeal against the recently adopted policies.

The appeal site is located within the Overbury Conservation Area and within proximity to a listed building. I have had regard to sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (‘the Act’), which respectively require me to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting 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 a conservation area.

The site also lies within the Cotswolds National Landscape. I have, therefore, also had regard to Section 245 of the [name] and Regeneration Act 2023 (the LURA) which amended the duty in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 in relation to National Landscapes to require relevant authorities, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Landscape to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the National Landscape.

The main issues are the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area, including:  the effect on heritage assets: and  the effect on the Cotswolds National Landscape.

The appeal building, [site address] , is a one and a half to three storey building. It is a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA), is between a Listed Building (Nindfield) and another property ([address]), all within the Overbury Conservation Area (the CA). The evidence before me indicates some degree of historic association with silk milling, common to all three heritage assets.

From the evidence submitted and my observations, and insofar as relevant to the appeal, the significance of the CA is mainly derived from the historic and current association with the [name] which, due to ownership, ensures the historic and architectural values remain. The CA has a range of buildings, including dwellings and former mills converted to residential use, which have a shared palette of materials and vernacular elements and contribute positively to the significance of the CA. There is also architectural interest from connections to [name] and [name] and the Arts and Crafts ideals.

Although it is not in a good state of repair [site address] , does not detract from the CA. It is part of the street scene and the historic development of the village. Although there is no evidence of the silk milling within [site address] , the appellant has confirmed that there are historic records. It, therefore, also has historic connections with silk milling and also small residential cottages. Overall, [site address] , even in its current condition, makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole.

Nindfield is a [name] listed building and is a substantial dwelling of C17 origin with later alterations and additions. The significance of the listed building is derived, in part, from its architecture and association with the development of the village. The setting in which the listed building is currently experienced includes the views from the road, its garden, and the gardens of other properties around it. [site address] is seen in the same views and is within the setting of the listed building.

Due to its historic association with the silk milling industry and the later small cottages use, [site address] itself is also a NDHA. As used most recently as small cottages, it tells the story of lower status residents of the village and, as the former mill use, is part of the wider story of the village and its association with milling. [site address] contributes to both the industrial and social history of the village.

There is no compelling evidence before me that [site address] formed part of the ownership, or had any direct relationship with, the listed building. Nevertheless, given both main parties advise that [site address] was constructed as a water powered silk mill, I do not accept that the relationship between the small residential cottages and the listed building is part of the social history of, or importance of, the listed building. However, in my judgement, [site address] does not make a positive contribution to the setting of the listed building and, due to its close association and scale, detracts from the ability of observers to fully appreciate the listed building and its setting.

The proposal is to partially demolish [site address] and retain the lower part of the walls to form outdoor courtyards for both Nindfield and [address]. The demolition of most of [site address] would alter the character and appearance of the CA and would affect the appreciation of the historic development of the village. Although the mill use is not apparent at [site address] the demolition would result in the loss of the small residential properties, which I am not aware are represented anywhere else within the CA. The proposal would, therefore, result in less than substantial harm to the CA. However, as I have not been provided with evidence that the small residential units are replicated elsewhere, I find that the harm is moderate in the range of less than substantial.

Nevertheless, the loss of most of [site address] , would bring more of the listed building into public and private view, allowing further appreciation of the listed building and enhancing its setting. This would be a positive benefit to the significance and setting of the listed building.

Where a development directly or indirectly affects a NDHA, a balanced judgement is required, having regard to the scale of any harm or loss & the significance of the heritage asset. The proposal would retain some of the walls of [site address] and the courtyard gardens would be informed by the footprint of the building and the walls, thereby retaining some of the history of the building and its spatial arrangement. The history of the structure and the ability to appreciate it would not be totally lost. Although there would be a partial loss of the NDHA, the harmful effect upon its significance would, therefore, be limited.

The National Planning Policy Framework sets out the desirability of sustaining and enhancing heritage assets and requires great weight to be given to the conservation of heritage assets. However, where a development would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.

The appellant’s “financial viability of future uses” report demonstrates that the costs of restoring and converting [site address] to a habitable dwelling would not be viable given the potential rental value of the subsequent dwelling. While the Council considers that other uses could be achieved at lower costs, including conversion to a smaller dwelling or ancillary uses, the appellant’s further evidence confirms that any other use, such as ancillary to the existing dwellings, would not be financially viable. Moreover, the viability assessment is not disputed by the Council, nor is there any compelling evidence to demonstrate that such uses would be viable.

Even if I accept that demolition of [site address] is not necessary for safety reasons and that it is capable of being retained and repaired, I have no compelling evidence that there is an alternative and viable use that would ensure that it would not fall further into disrepair. Consequently, although there are other uses that it might be capable of accommodating, I have no reason to believe that such uses would occur and that the proposal before me would not result in the optimum viable use.

For the reasons given above, I have found harm to the CA, and limited harm to the NDHA. I have given this harm great weight. Against this harm the public benefits include the opportunity to better reveal and enhance the setting of the listed building, to which I give significant weight, and the ecological enhancements, to which I give moderate weight. There are also private benefits, such as providing additional garden areas, which are neutral in the balance. Overall, the public benefits would be such that they would outweigh the less than substantial harm that I have identified to the CA and the limited harm to the NDHA.

I, therefore, find that the proposal would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the area, including heritage assets. The development would, therefore, comply with the Act and with Policies SWDPR09, SWDPR28 and SWDPR33 of the SWDPR 2026. Collectively these policies seek to conserve and enhance the significance of heritage assets, protect the contribution to the setting and character of the landscape, sustain the historic quality, sense of place, environmental quality and economic viability, require development to be of a high quality design, integrate effectively with its surroundings, and reinforce a sense of place and local distinctiveness.

The appeal site also lies within the Cotswolds National Landscape (the NL) and within the [address] [name] and Farmland landscape unit. The landscape is characterised by, amongst other things, farmland, and clustered settlement patterns.

Albeit within the NL and within open countryside for planning purposes [site address] is within a small settlement and is between two existing dwellings. It contributes positively to the character of the village itself. There are views of the countryside from near [site address] and between it and the neighbouring properties. However, it does not contribute to the character and appearance of the countryside around the village or contribute strongly to the characteristics of the landscape unit.

The demolition of most of [site address] would introduce a gap where there is currently built development. Nevertheless, from my observations, I find that gaps between buildings is part of the character of the area. There is a large gap between [address] and Woodlands and other gaps between other properties. Although partial demolition of [site address] would result in the loss of a building that forms part of the history of the settlement, its loss would not substantially alter the settlement character as a whole. Moreover, it would not result in an overly suburban character that is not already found within the wider village. The introduction of the courtyard gardens would not be out of keeping with the landscape type characteristics. Neither would the demolition of [site address] change the relationship between the village and the landscape around it, even with the loss of the association with silk milling.

The design of the proposed garden areas would respect the historic interest of the appeal building and ensure that its presence remains understood, along with records of the building and its previous uses. In my judgement the design of the proposal is sensitive to its history, to the properties either side, and to the character and appearance of the village.

For these reasons, the development would not adversely affect the character and appearance of the area, including the National Landscape and it would not be harmful to the purpose of conserving or enhancing the natural beauty of the NL.

I, therefore, find no conflict with Policies SWDPR03 and SWDPR34 of the SWDPR 2026 which, amongst other matters, seeks to strictly control development in the open countryside, requires development to take into account the Worcestershire Landscape Character Assessment and its guidelines, be appropriate to, and integrate with, the character of the landscape setting, and conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the primary characteristics defined in character assessments.

Neither main party have suggested any conditions. However, I have been provided with consultee responses which include suggested conditions. I have considered these in light of the Planning Practice Guidance.

Conditions relating to the time limit for implementation and the approved plans are required for certainty. I have also included conditions as requested by the Council Regulatory Services Officer relating to contamination on the basis that contamination may be present within the building and the site. However, I have re-worded the recommended conditions to simplify them into one.

For the reasons given above, and taking into account all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and planning permission should be granted subject to the conditions set out above.