Wooden outbuilding to the front garden

Appeal Decision by G Bayliss BA (Hons) MA MA MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 February 2026 Appeal A Ref: 6001028 2 Cozens Lane East, Broxbourne, Hertfordshire EN10 6PX • 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 Nicholas Morley against the decision of Broxbourne Borough Council. • The application Ref is 07/25/0234/HF. • The development is the erection of a wooden outbuilding to the front garden. Appeal B Ref: 6000862 2 Cozens Lane East, Broxbourne, Hertfordshire EN10 6PX • The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant listed building consent. • The appeal is made by Mr Nicholas Morley against the decision of Broxbourne Borough Council. • The application Ref is 07/25/0221/LB. • The works are the erection of a wooden outbuilding to the front garden. Decisions 1. Appeal A is dismissed. 2. Appeal B: Listed building consent is not required. I have therefore taken no further action in connection with this appeal. Preliminary Matters 3. I have removed the word ‘retrospective’ from the description of the development/works in the banner heading above as this does not relate to the operative part of the scheme. The scheme has already been implemented, and I have determined these appeals on this basis and with regard to the plans before me. Having visited the site, I am satisfied that the plans appear to accord with what is on the ground. 4. There are two appeals on this site. They relate to the planning application and listed building consent for the same scheme, and the outbuilding lies within the grounds of a listed building. Section 1(5) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) states that the listed building includes any object or structure fixed to the building and any free-standing object or structure erected before 1 July 1948 within the curtilage of the listed building. As both parties have indicated that the outbuilding is a recent construction, I have sought clarification from them as to whether the structure requires listed building consent. Having considered the comments received and the evidence before me, it is my view that the outbuilding subject to this appeal is a recent addition, and it did not alter or replace an earlier structure. For these reasons, I do not consider that the outbuilding is either fixed to the listed building or satisfies the above definition of a curtilage structure. Therefore, listed building consent would not be required, and it has not been necessary for me to determine this appeal. Appeal Decisions 6001028, 6000862 2 5. I have a duty under Section 66(1) of the Act which requires special regard to be had to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of architectural or historic interest which it possesses. The appeal site also lies within a conservation area. Although the Council has not highlighted an impact on it, I am required under Section 72(1) of the Act to give special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. Main Issue 6. The main issue is whether the development preserves the Grade II listed building or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, and whether it preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the conservation area. Reasons 7. No 2 Cozens Lane is a Grade II listed building (Ref.1348408, list entry name: 195 Broxbourne High Road, 2 Cozens Lane East). The list description mentions that the building is a 17th century timber framed structure constructed in roughcast with a tile roof, has an L-plan and is of two storeys. It also describes the arrangement of windows, doors and other building features. I saw that a principal elevation faced towards Cozens Lane East and here the form of the building and its historic detailing, including its sash windows, could be appreciated. In this location, the building is viewed in conjunction with its front garden with entrance drive and is bounded by a hedge of mixed height. This elevation is seen in a wider context from several points along Cozens Lane East, especially from more easterly views along the lane and across nearby gardens. 8. In relation to this appeal, the building’s significance derives from its age, form, function and appearance. The views from Cozens Lane East are the context in which the building is experienced and appreciated, and they contribute to that significance. 9. The Council has provided a map showing the appeal property lying within the New River Conservation Area. The Council does not appear to have explained the contribution that the appeal property makes to the character and appearance of the area nor assessed any impact arising from the development. In relation to this appeal, I saw that the area had a residential character with typically historic properties set in mature gardens. Where it was possible to view the frontages to these buildings, I saw that they were mainly open, and I did not see any modern ancillary structures within them. This allowed the buildings to be viewed without detracting structures. The appeal property is clearly viewed within the conservation area and, as a listed building, it makes a positive contribution to the area’s character and appearance. 10. The outbuilding, subject to this appeal, is of timber construction clad in horizontal boarding, finished in dark paint, with a flat roof. Double, upvc glazed doors face towards the drive. The structure is in the far-left corner of the front garden adjoining the mature roadside hedge and the boarded fence of the neighbouring property. 11. Although from some directions the appeal structure is screened from public view by the height and density of the roadside hedge, I saw that it could be readily seen Appeal Decisions 6001028, 6000862 3 in views from Cozens Lane East travelling west towards the junction with Broxbourne High Road. From here, I could see that the structure occupied a substantial part of the front garden and its box-like form and flat roof made it appear as a dominant and incongruous feature in the front garden of the listed building. Should the boundary hedge be reduced in height or removed by the current or a subsequent occupant, the outbuilding would be much more conspicuous. 12. Despite any screening effect to the outbuilding, listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of whether public views are available. In this regard, when standing in the front garden, the outbuilding detracted from the relatively open, garden frontage and it had the appearance of a structure which would be more associated with a rear and private garden. Furthermore, from this close viewpoint, the membrane roof and upvc double doors added to the visual harm cause by the inappropriateness of this utilitarian structure. I found that it drew the eye and visually competed with views of the character and detail of the listed building. 13. In relation to the conservation area, the unexpected and harmful presence of the appeal structure in the front garden detracted from the typically open frontages of those historic buildings that I saw within it. Therefore, the development also causes harm to the character and appearance of the conservation area. 14. The nearest part of the house to the outbuilding may be a more recent construction but that does not justify the siting of this outbuilding within the frontage of a listed building. The structure may have been present for over three years and not received complaints from the neighbouring community but that does not override my statutory duty or the harm that I have found. Historic England may not have raised an objection, but with many developments near to listed buildings, decisions are often deferred to the Council’s heritage officers. Furthermore, whilst theoretically the structure could be removed in future, due to the financial outlay and facilities provided this would be unlikely to happen. 15. The outbuilding therefore has a harmful effect on the extent to which the setting of the listed building contributes to its significance, and to the character and appearance of the conservation area. Therefore, the expectations of the Act are not met. The Framework advises that when considering the impact of proposals on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. It goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through development within its setting, and any such harm should have a clear and convincing justification. I find the harm in the context of the significance of the heritage assets, in the language of the Framework, to be at the lower end of less than substantial in this instance. This commands considerable importance and weight and is not to be treated as a less than substantial objection. The Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 16. The appellant advises that the outbuilding is required to support the ongoing use and enjoyment of the property, providing modern utility space. However, whilst this may be the case there is little to suggest that it needs to be in the front garden rather than elsewhere. Whilst the appellant states that the proposal would secure the viable use of the property, there is no adequate indication that the long term use of the property would be at risk were I to dismiss this appeal as the property Appeal Decisions 6001028, 6000862 4 has an ongoing residential use that would continue. The provision of the outbuilding may negate touching the listed building itself, but it is unclear why this would be harmful. 17. The appellant advises that consents have been granted for comparable works to listed buildings of equivalent grades nearby, but I have not been provided with adequate supporting documentation. In the absence of knowing where these properties are and the precise circumstances, I am unable to draw any comparisons with the scheme before me. Therefore, my decision is based on the specifics of this case including the building’s significance and its context. 18. I therefore conclude that the public benefits identified are of insufficient weight to outweigh the great weight to be given to the harm to the designated heritage assets. As such, the development would not comply with the Framework and there is no clear and convincing justification for the harm. 19. Drawing all these matters together, the development does not preserve the Grade II listed building or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses, and it harms the character or appearance of the conservation area. It would fail to comply with Policies DSC1 and HE2 of the Broxbourne Local Plan (2024) which, amongst other things, seek to reinforce the requirements of the Act and Framework. Conclusion 20. For the reasons given above and having regard to the development plan as a whole, along with all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that Appeal A should be dismissed. G Bayliss INSPECTOR