Roof terrace with an internal access stair to the rear flat roof extension to Russell House. The proposals include repairs and new flat roof to the existing garden shed built up to the rear boundary with Victoria Cottages

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 April 2026 by H Smith BSc (Hons) MSc MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6000776 Russell House, Packhorse Lane, South Stoke, Bath BA2 7DW • 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 Mr Adam Lingard against the decision of Bath and North East Somerset Council. • The application Ref is 25/01612/FUL. • The development proposed is roof terrace with an internal access stair to the rear flat roof extension to Russell House. The proposals include repairs and new flat roof to the existing garden shed built up to the rear boundary with Victoria Cottages. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, having particular regard to the effect upon the South Stoke Conservation Area and the setting of the Grade II* listed Church of St James; and • whether the proposal would adversely affect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regard to overlooking and loss of privacy. Reasons Conservation area and setting of listed building 3. The appeal property is located within the South Stoke Conservation Area (CA). Section 71(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires decision makers to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area, to which I have attached considerable importance and weight. 4. The significance and special interest of the CA is partly drawn from its surviving historic buildings, including their modest rural form and historic fabric and the tranquil rural character of the area. It is also the way the buildings of varying ages and styles reflect the evolution of the settlement. 5. The site also lies within the setting of the Church of St James, a Grade II* listed1 church. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Area) Act 1 List Entry Number: 1277046. Appeal Decision 6000776 2 1990 (the Act) states that, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, the decision maker shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting. 6. The significance and special interest of this heritage asset is partly derived from its age, its relevance to the historic development of the area, and its retained historic building fabric. This significance is further supported by its architectural and historic value as a place of worship. 7. The special interest and significance of the listed church also stem in part from its setting. The churchyard, which is moderately enclosed by surrounding buildings, is the principal space in which the church is experienced and its significance appreciated. As such, it contributes in a positive way to its heritage merit. 8. The appeal site relates to Russell House, a mid-18th century dwelling constructed mainly from stone. The principal elevation fronts Packhorse Lane and is highly visible from the village centre, the village green and the approach from Old School Hill. The rear of the property has a flat-roofed two storey rear extension constructed from similar stone, which is visible from the adjacent churchyard, public footpath and neighbouring dwellings. 9. Pertinent to the appeal, the property has a pitched roof with raised ashlar stone copings on both gables and a central chimney on the west gable. The two-storey rear extension’s flat roof is recessed into the rear pitched roof and has a central chimney stack on the southern gable. The flat roof is contained on three sides with a black metal facia and guttering to contain the roof drainage. 10. The proposed roof terrace would utilise the existing rear flat roof and would provide the occupants of Russell House with outdoor amenity space at roof level. A glazed balustrade would be set back from the rear edge of the flat roof, with slatted timber barriers installed along the sides of the terrace. 11. Although the glazed balustrade would be set back, views of this reflective structure would still be possible, particularly from the churchyard. In these views, the balustrade would be a prominent, incongruous modern addition. It would be uncharacteristic of, and detrimental to the prevailing traditional architectural style and features of the host dwelling. 12. Furthermore, due to the height and solid, flat-faced appearance of the slatted timber barriers to its side edges, the proposal would appear visually heavy. It would introduce a degree of scale and massing that would be read as a prominent and visually discordant feature above the existing flat roofline of the host dwelling’s rear extension. As a result, the existing proportions and subservient nature of the rear extension would be eroded. The proposal would appear incongruous both in relation to the host dwelling and the distinctive character and appearance of the area. 13. Moreover, people standing on the terrace would also be very apparent from the churchyard and the neighbouring properties, making the change to the roof form even more evident. It is likely that the domestic paraphernalia that would be introduced to the roof terrace, such as parasols, would be taller than the barriers. Such paraphernalia would draw attention to the roof terrace, adding visual clutter. Appeal Decision 6000776 3 14. Consequently, the proposed roof terrace and associated barriers would introduce a visually discordant feature that would disrupt the unity of the roof form of which it forms part. As the host dwelling is a prominent feature that contributes to the significance of the CA, the impact of altering the rear extension through the introduction of the roof terrace would diminish its contribution to the CA. 15. While only glimpsed views of the proposed roof terrace would be visible from the village green, it would be highly visible from the churchyard of St James’s Church and when approaching the village along the nearby public right of way. Given the elevated position, the proposal would have a harmful impact on how the setting of the listed church is experienced. 16. Planting, such as Cotswold Wisteria, would provide some softening and screening of the slatted timber barriers. However, it would take some time to mature and there is no guarantee that the planting would survive. The proposal would also remain visible during the winter months when the planting is not in leaf or flowering. 17. Ashlar stone copings would replace the existing black metal facia. The appellant states that this would be more sympathetic to the host building and would help conceal the deck of the roof terrace. Nevertheless, I have found harm for the reasons explained. 18. The appeal site is within the Cotswold Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). AONB’s are now known as National Landscapes. As the proposal would have mainly localised views due to the positioning of adjacent development and the limited extent of the scheme, I do not find harm to the wider Cotswold National Landscape. However, acceptability in this regard does not overcome my concerns above. 19. Drawing the above together, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and would be incongruous to the prevailing character of the surrounding area. It would also fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and would not preserve the setting of the listed church. Public benefits and heritage balance 20. Paragraph 213 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) advises that any harm to the significance of a heritage asset should require clear and convincing justification. Also, with reference to the Framework and proposals affecting heritage assets, in finding harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, the magnitude of the harm should be assessed. Given the extent and fairly localised nature of the proposal, I find that the harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets to be ‘less than substantial’ but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. To my mind, this is towards the middle of the range of the less than substantial harm. Paragraph 215 of the Framework requires this harm to be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 21. In this case, economic benefits would be delivered through the construction phase, but the extent of contribution would be small and attract limited positive weight. 22. The benefits of additional private outdoor space I apportion as a private benefit to the appellant and their family. The incorporation of planting would be a small Appeal Decision 6000776 4 environmental benefit in the overall scheme of things. The appellant also indicates that there would be heritage benefits from the removal of incongruous fascia and repair of the garden shed. However, these benefits would be modest. 23. Additionally, no compelling evidence is before me which confirms that the property would not be usable or viable as a dwelling or that its future would be at risk if the appeal was to fail. In these respects, the identified harm to the significance of the CA and the setting of the listed building has not been clearly and convincingly justified as required by paragraph 213 of the Framework. 24. On balance, in giving considerable importance and weight to the harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets, I find that this would not be outweighed by the minor public benefits arising from the proposal. 25. To conclude on this main issue, the proposal would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the provisions within the Framework which seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment. It would also be contrary to Policies D1, D2, D5, HE1 and NE2 of the Bath and North East Somerset Core Strategy (adopted 2014) (Core Strategy). Collectively, these policies amongst other things, seek to ensure that development is well designed and contributes positively to local distinctiveness and the characteristics of the settlement. It also seeks to ensure heritage assets, including their settings, are sustained and enhanced. Living conditions of neighbouring occupiers 26. The proposal is accompanied by drawings to demonstrate the sightlines from the roof terrace to the rear. As the glazed barrier would be set back by around 1-2m from the roof edge, this would ensure terrace users cannot stand directly overlooking the gardens or windows of Victoria Cottages. Instead, views would be restricted to roofscapes, the churchyard, and the wider valley. The set back would also reduce the terrace size, thereby limiting its potential intensity of use and associated activity and noise. 27. Additionally, side timber barriers would restrict lateral views towards Alderley Cottage and Russell Cottage. There would also be some distance between these other properties and views would be at an oblique angle. This would not result in a severely intrusive impact on the neighbour’s living conditions. As a whole, the living conditions of the nearby occupants would be safeguarded in respect of overlooking and privacy. 28. Whilst the structure would introduce bulk for the reasons explained above, it would not result in an overbearing impact on neighbouring occupiers due to its set back design and sufficient distance between neighbouring properties. 29. Consequently, I do not find harm in this regard. Therefore, the proposal would accord with Policy D6 of the Core Strategy. This policy, amongst other things, seeks to ensure development does not cause harm to the amenities of existing or proposed occupiers. Other Matters 30. I note the appellant sought pre-application advice from the Council. Nonetheless, this does not alter my decision. I have determined this appeal on its own merit based on the evidence before me and my own observation on site. Appeal Decision 6000776 5 Conclusion 31. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed. H Smith INSPECTOR