Erection of a porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 December 2025 by R J Redford MTCP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 December 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000538 6 The Oval, Frampton On Severn, Gloucester GL2 7HQ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Martin Young against the decision of Stroud District Council. • The application Ref is S.25/0690/HHOLD. • The development proposed is the erection of a porch. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Frampton on Severn Conservation Area. Reasons 3. As the proposal is in the Frampton on Severn Conservation Area (CA) special regard to section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) must be had. 4. The appeal dwelling is the end property of a short terrace within an area of the CA called The Oval. It is part of a post Second World War housing estate originally derived from the Garden City Movement. It was built for workers at the nearby Cadbury factory, by Gloucester Rural District Council using the principles of Raymond Unwin. The properties on The Oval are characterised by the simplified arts and craft form with gable detailing, and their simple frontages are adorned with slab canopy porches providing a clear legibility and cadence to the properties. These design features provide the unique character of The Oval, and which make it distinct from the wider estate even though similar materials are used throughout. 5. The properties on The Oval have had some alterations, but on the front elevations this is largely limited to changes in the door and window treatments, with only 2 obvious examples of porches or single-story front extensions. It is the uniformity and simple functionality of the houses design which informs the appearance of The Oval. 6. The appeal dwelling is therefore important to the significance of the CA as it shows the historic development of the area and the focus of the then Council to try to provide social housing that was both functional, and sympathetic to a popular design aesthetic at the time. Appeal Decision 6000538 2 7. The proposal would replace the original brick pillared slab canopy over the front door of the appeal property with an enclosed pitched roofed porch built in materials to match the existing house. Due to the lack of change in the area and the prominent location of the appeal property at the top of The Oval, the proposed porch would be clearly obvious, and its size would overwhelm the otherwise simple form of the property. It would create a dominant feature that would detrimentally impact the overall harmonious design of the whole terrace. 8. It would therefore constitute a form of development which would harm the appearance of the appeal property and fit awkwardly within the largely uniform design of The Oval, so harm the area’s character and appearance. 9. The use of matching materials would be a positive design element of the scheme. However, this does not overcome the harm identified in relation to the loss of a historical design feature, the existing slab canopy, and the size of that proposed. That there are examples of other porches or front extensions in The Oval, does not mitigate the harm the proposal would have and simply confirms the need for careful design. 10. As such the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of The Oval, and therefore the significance of the CA. However, this would be less then substantial harm of the lower order due to the impact being limited to just one area of the CA, The Oval. 11. Paragraph 208 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that when less then substantial harm to the significance of a heritage asset is identified it should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimal viable use. 12. The optimal viable use of the appeal site is residential, and this use continuing is not reliant on the provisions of the proposed. The appellant has highlighted that the proposal would improve the functionality of the appeal dwelling by providing a sheltered entrance, enhanced security, and contribute to the overall energy efficiency of the property. Although tangible these are only beneficial to the occupant of the home so do not constitute public benefits. 13. Consequently, the proposed public benefits would not outweigh the less than substantial harm identified. The proposal would therefore fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the Framework and would conflict with Stroud District Council Local Plan Policies HC8 and ES10 which, amongst other things, seek home extensions to respect the appearance of the site and the local area, and preserve, protect and enhance the district’s historic environment. Other Matters 14. The Council have identified the proposal would not cause harm in relation to contamination, living conditions and highway safety. However, a lack of harm is, by definition neutral, so cannot weigh for or against the proposal. 15. It is also acknowledged that the proposal has gained some support from the local community. However, this does not mitigate the harm identified or the proposal’s lack of public benefit. Appeal Decision 6000538 3 Conclusion 16. For the reasons given above the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan when read as a whole and there are no sufficiently weighted material considerations, including the Framework, which would indicate a decision otherwise. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. R J Redford INSPECTOR