Construction of a small single storey side extension

Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 19 January 2026 by Neil Pope BA(HONS) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 January 2026 Appeal A Ref: 6001188 No 12 Kings Corner, Pewsey, Wiltshire, SN9 5BS. • 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 Ms. Helen Durnford against the decision of Wiltshire Council (the LPA). • The application reference is PL/2025/04396. • The development proposed is described as the construction of a small single storey side extension. Appeal B Ref: 6001189 No 12 Kings Corner, Pewsey, Wiltshire, SN9 5BS. • 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 Ms. Helen Durnford against the decision of Wiltshire Council (the LPA). • The application reference is PL/2025/04210. • The works proposed are described as the construction of a small single storey side extension. Decisions 1. Appeal A is dismissed and appeal B is allowed. Listed building consent is granted for the construction of a small single storey side extension at No 12 Kings Corner, Pewsey, Wiltshire, SN9 5BS. Consent is granted in accordance with the terms of the application reference PL/2025/04210 and subject to the conditions below: 1. The works hereby permitted shall commence within a period of three years from the date of this decision. 2. The works hereby permitted shall be undertaken in accordance with the following approved plans: 1:500 scale site location / block plan (ref. D/LBC/02) and; 1:100 scale proposed ground floor plan and elevations (ref. D/LBC/03). 3. The extension hereby permitted shall be finished using materials that match the colour, form and texture of those used on the external walls and roof of the host building. Preliminary Matters 2. The appeal site forms part of the grade II listed building known as School House1. It lies within the Pewsey Conservation Area2 (CA) and the North Wessex Downs National Landscape3 (NL). Main Issues 3. The two main issues are: firstly, whether the proposal would preserve the features of special architectural or historic interest of the School House and preserve the 1 Listed as Pewsey National School and No. 12 School Lane. The provisions of sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) are engaged. 2 The provisions of section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) are engaged. 3 The provisions of section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended) are engaged. Appeal Decisions 6001188 and 6001189 2 character or appearance of the CA (both appeals) and; secondly, the likely effect upon the living conditions of neighbouring residents, having particular regard to the light and outlook of the occupiers of Nos.1 and 2 The Old School (appeal A only). Reasons First Main Issue – The Grade II Listed School House and the CA (Appeals A and B) 4. Designed by George Edmund Street, the heritage interest (significance) of the mid-19th century School House is primarily derived from its special architectural and historic qualities. These include its Gothic Revival style architecture with brick walls and some tile hanging, tiled roof, arched entrance door, 12-pane sashed windows, steeply pitched scissor trussed roof to former hall, old classrooms and cloakrooms. Its historic interest includes the previous use as a school and master’s house and role in educating pupils within Pewsey. Now sub-divided into a number of dwellings, this designated heritage asset has a residential character and includes some modern alterations/additions such as the utility room on No.12. 5. The CA is a sizeable area that includes much of the historic core of Pewsey, as well some quieter back lanes and streets. The significance of this designated heritage asset is also primarily derived from its special architectural and historic qualities. This includes the contribution made by the various listed buildings. The appeal site lies within the Ball Road / Kings Corner character zone as defined within the 2007 Pewsey Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Proposals document. Amongst other things, this describes the buildings at Kings Corner as being densely packed together and encircled by open land which bestows a rural, rather than suburban or urban character to this part of the CA. 6. The proposed ground floor toilet/bathroom would be added to the eastern wall of the appellant’s utility room and would not involve the loss or disturbance to any important historic building fabric. This very modest-sized extension would have a gable end and would be finished using matching brickwork, clay tiled roof and painted hardwood window. It would match the appearance of the host building. 7. I note the LPA’s concern that the proposal would encroach into a historically intentional gap between the former master’s house and school rooms. However, a gap would still be retained between the proposed extension and the flank wall of the former classroom, thereby maintaining a visual distinction/separation between the former master’s house and school. The legibility of these component parts of the listed building would be preserved, and it would still be possible to discern the architectural detailing on both the former master’s house and school. The proposal would not harm the architectural qualities / integrity of the listed building. 8. I conclude on the first main issue that the proposed development / works would preserve the features of special architectural and historic interest of the School House and, in so doing, preserve the character and appearance of the CA. It would accord with the provisions of the development plan that are aimed at protecting the historic environment4. Appeal B should therefore succeed. Second Main Issue – Living Conditions (Appeal A only) 9. The proposed development would enhance the appellant’s living conditions by providing a ground floor toilet and walk-in shower. It also would allow her to 4 Core policy 58 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy (CS) adopted in 2015. Appeal Decisions 6001188 and 6001189 3 remain living independently in her home should her mobility become impaired at a later date. However, the eastern flank wall of the proposed extension would be very close to the facing windows in 1 The Old School. It would also be immediately alongside the rear entrance / garden path to 2 The Old School. 10. As I saw during my visit, the facing windows in 1 The Old School provide an important source of natural light and outlook to an internal space that is used for more than cooking purposes5 by the occupier(s) of this neighbouring dwelling. These neighbouring occupier(s) could reasonably be expected to spend much time in this part of their home. The occupier(s) of 2 The Old School could also be reasonably expected to make much use of the rear entrance path, not least for accessing the rear garden space. 11. The close proximity of the tall, solid flank wall of the proposed extension would be likely to reduce the amount of natural light entering the facing windows of 1 The Old School during the later part of the day. It would also appear as a rather dominant and oppressive element within the outlook from the facing windows in this neighbouring dwelling. As a consequence, the proposal would be likely to erode the living conditions for the occupier(s) of 1 The Old School and conflict with the provisions of CS policy 57(vii). Enhancing the living conditions for one resident at the expense of another would be nonsensical and wrong. 12. The proposal would also be somewhat overbearing for the occupier(s) of 2 The Old School when accessing their rear garden space or rear entrance doorway. It would also be likely to result in a rather gloomy area outside the rear door of No.2. Whilst this, by itself, would not be adequate justification for withholding permission, it adds some limited weight to the argument for dismissing this appeal. 13. I conclude on the second main issue that the proposal would have an adverse effect upon the living conditions of the occupiers of Nos.1 and 2 The Old School. Other Matter 14. The proposal would not detract from the natural beauty or scenic qualities of the NL. There is also nothing to indicate that it would harm the special qualities of this nationally important landscape. However, for appeal A, this does not outweigh my findings in respect of the second main issue above. Conditions (Appeal B) 15. In addition to the ‘standard’ condition requiring works to commence within three years, for the avoidance of doubt, a condition would be necessary specifying the approved plans. To safeguard the character and appearance of the listed building a condition would be necessary requiring the use of matching materials. Overall Conclusion 16. Given my findings above and having regard to all other matter raised, I conclude that appeal A should not succeed and appeal B should be allowed. Neil Pope Inspector 5 This sizeable space appeared to be well-used as a kitchen and an area for eating, with table and chairs. It could reasonably be described as a habitable room.