Ground floor extension, new pitched porch, loft conversion, new dormers, internal alterations. External red brick to match existing, horizontal timber slats for flat roof dormers, to match existing, and areas of white render

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 February 2026 by C Rose BA (Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001664 Red Cottage, Mill Lane, Padworth, Reading, West Berkshire RG7 4JU • 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 Mrs Vanita Ashley against the decision of West Berkshire District Council. • The application Ref is 24/02625/HOUSE. • The development proposed is ground floor extension, new pitched porch, loft conversion, new dormers, internal alterations. External red brick to match existing, horizontal timber slats for flat roof dormers, to match existing, and areas of white render. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The appeal is accompanied by a Technical Note prepared by EcoVigour Integrated Environmental Management, Baseline Habitats, BNG Metric, Habitat Creation and Enhancements, Flood Risk Assessment, External Materials Details and a Preliminary Ecological Appraisal and Biodiversity Net Gain. Given the number of interested party comments at the time of the planning application, and given that the appeal is following the Householder Appeals Service meaning that the Council and interested parties do not have an opportunity to submit a statement or additional representations, accepting the additional information in this instance would cause procedural unfairness to the other parties involved in the appeal. It would also be contrary to the guidance in The Planning Inspectorate’s Procedural Guide regarding proposals not normally including new evidence or additional technical data. As a result, and while I acknowledge that the appellant is seeking to address the third and fourth reasons for refusal in particular, having regard to the principles of Holborn1, acceptance of the above information would be procedurally unfair and as a result I have not taken it into account in determining this appeal. 3. At the time of my site visit the development had been commenced and appeared to accord with the amended plans submitted at the time of the planning application. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on those plans. Main Issues 4. The main issues for the appeal are: • whether the development conserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Aldermaston Wharf Conservation Area (CA), and the 1 Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin) Appeal Decision 6001664 2 effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling as a non- designated heritage asset, • the effect of the development upon protected species with particular regard to bats; and, • the effect of the development on flood risk. Reasons Character and appearance 5. The appeal site lies within the CA and as such forms part of its setting. The CA is based around the canal and associated wharf. Its significance derives from the historic association of the area to the canal and wharf with many of the buildings comprising simple cottages with tiled roofs and chimneys. 6. These features are reflected within the appeal building, that along with Lyndale of a similar appearance adjacent to its southern boundary, fall within the CA. It is noteworthy that the properties on the opposite side of Mill Lane fall outside of the CA. While Red Cottage is at a slightly lower level to the road and enclosed by fencing and landscaping, it is still visible above these and from parts of Mill Lane, particularly through its vehicular and pedestrian accesses. 7. By virtue of its design and age, the Council have identified the appeal property as being a Non-Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA). In the absence of substantive evidence from the appellant, including a heritage statement, demonstrating otherwise, I see no reason to disagree. 8. Before the current works were commenced, Red Cottage comprised a number of notable architectural features that together made a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the building and to the setting and significance of the wider CA. These include simple hipped roof forms, prominent chimney stacks, tile- hung elevations, red brick and roof tile facing materials and a subservient wing at a lower level. The significance of the NDHA is derived from the combination of these elements demonstrating the local history and evolution of the area. As stated above, the appeal building is visible from Mill Lane allowing an appreciation of its significance in the street scene to which the appeal building contributes. 9. By reason of the cumulative effect of the loss of the chimney stacks, introduction of gable ends to the roof, introduction of a considerable extent of horizontal cladding and render, scale and increase of flat roof extensions, flat roof dormer windows and number of rooflights, the development significantly undermines and results in the loss of the original historic character and appearance of the dwelling. It also results in the enlargement of the building to an extent that significantly alters and undermines its original scale and proportions. For the same reasons, the development results in associated harm to the significance and setting of the CA. This would be the case despite the use of conservation style rooflights and given that the size of the flat roof dormer to the gable end means that it will be visible from Mill Lane. 10. While the appellant states that the hanging tiles are a later addition and that the tiles and the chimney stacks have, and have caused, structural issues, there is little substantive evidence before me to demonstrate the age of the hanging tiles or that any structural issues could not be resolved without removal of the tiles or chimneys. Appeal Decision 6001664 3 There is also little substantive evidence before me demonstrating that they could not be reinstated following any necessary structural repairs. As the hanging tiles and chimneys formed prominent features to the building fronting Mill Lane in particular, from the evidence before me, I cannot conclude that their loss in combination with the other changes is justified. While the appellant advises that the original building comprises weatherboarding and render, this is not reflected on the existing elevations before me and as such is unlikely to have been used to the same extent as proposed. 11. My attention has been drawn to Sterling Cottage, Acorns and Nursery End nearby on Mill Lane that are more modern buildings, with the latter two comprising render and significant gable-end extensions with rooflights. However, these sites are not directly comparable to the appeal site as they lie outside of the CA and from the information before me did not comprise alterations to a NDHA. While my attention has also been drawn to the more modern built forms of the educational and community buildings nearby, and to Bridge House, I do not have detailed information before me in relation to them to conclude that they are directly comparable to the appeal development that has been identified as a NDHA. Furthermore, I am required to consider the appeal proposal on its merits. 12. I have also had regard to the consent for an outbuilding to Red Cottage, but as this proposal did not include changes to the original building, it is not directly comparable to the appeal development before me. 13. Therefore, due to a combination of the changes to the building forming part of the development, it follows from the above that I find that the proposal would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA. It would also cause unacceptable harm to the non-designated heritage asset. Within the overall context, the proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of the CA. 14. By reason of the less than substantial harm being at a local level, the harm would be at the lower end of the spectrum. However, it is important to note that less than substantial harm does not equate to a less than substantial planning objection. Paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that less than substantial harm be weighed against public benefits of the proposal. While I acknowledge the development would provide some employment and economic benefits from the construction works, and improve the living condition of future occupiers, these benefits even when taken collectively, do not outweigh the less than substantial harm to the setting and significance of the CA. 15. It follows from the above, that the development fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Aldermaston Wharf Conservation Area as a whole and harms the character, appearance and significance of the host dwelling as a non-designated heritage asset. As such, the development is contrary to Policies SP7, SP8, SP9, DM11 and DM28 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2023 – 2041 Adopted June 2025 (LP). Amongst other things, these state that new development will be required to strengthen a sense of place through high quality locally distinctive design and place shaping, ensure that new development is appropriate in terms of location, scale and design in the context of the existing settlement form, pattern and character, maximise opportunities to preserve, enhance, or better reveal the asset’s significance including the contribution to that significance made by its setting. Furthermore, they state that proposals should Appeal Decision 6001664 4 have particular regard to the scale, proportion, design, historic fabric, detailing and materials to the asset, and does not harm the historic and/or architectural interest of the existing dwelling. Flood risk 16. The site lies within Flood Zone 3 which is at the highest risk of flooding. This is the case despite the appellant advising of no known flood events. LP Policy SP6 states that within Flood Zone 3, development at risk of flooding will only be supported if it is demonstrated that it is located and designed to ensure that flood risk from all sources is acceptable in planning terms. The Policy goes on to state that on all development sites; in order to restrict or reduce run-off, surface water will be managed in a sustainable manner through the implementation of Sustainable Drainage Methods. 17. In light of the above, given that the development increases the footprint of the building and changes the roof form, thereby potentially increasing surface water run-off rates, and in the absence of a Flood Risk Assessment, including details of how the development will be designed to prevent and mitigate any flood risk, and in the absence of sustainable drainage details, I cannot conclude that the development would not be at risk of flooding or cause an adverse impact upon flood risk elsewhere. 18. As such, the development is contrary to LP Policies SP5 and SP6 that, amongst other things, state that development is expected to demonstrate that flood risk from all sources can be avoided or managed and use sustainable urban drainage systems in accordance with Policy SP6, the aims of which I have outlined above. Bats 19. There is no dispute between the main parties that this householder development is exempt from Biodiversity Net Gain and I have no reason to disagree. 20. However, I note that the Council state that an ecological assessment should be undertaken and that as a result of the works, and in the absence of such information, it cannot be determined how the development would conserve and enhance biodiversity and protected species. The consultation response from the Council’s Ecologist confirms that the comments relate to the possible presence of bats. 21. As stated above, at the time of my site visit, the works had commenced. These works include significant alterations to the walls and roof of the original building with the cottage devoid of some roof tiles, fascia boards and soffits and with some exposed walls and openings. In light of this, and given the semi-verdant nature of the area, I cannot conclude that there is no, or little, likelihood of the building being utilised by bat species. 22. Given the above, and in the absence of a suitable bat survey and details of any potential mitigation to prevent harm to bats during construction, I cannot conclude that the development would not have a harmful effect on bats. As such, it is contrary to LP Policies SP11 and DM28. Amongst other things, these state that development proposals will be required to demonstrate how they conserve and enhance biodiversity. Appeal Decision 6001664 5 Other Considerations 23. I have had regard to the development not causing harm to the living conditions of nearby occupiers, to highway safety, trees, and to the principle of altering and extending the dwelling being acceptable. However, given that these are requirements of, and supported by, local and national planning policy and guidance, I give them limited weight in favour of the development. 24. The appellant has raised concerns regarding a lack of visit to the site by the Councils Conservation Officer. However, this is not a matter before me for consideration, and I have visited the site and considered the development on its merits. 25. I acknowledge that the development would address the poor condition of some of the building, would comprise an effective use of land and would not cause harm with regard to the enlarged porch or provision of the pitched-roof dormer windows. However, these matters do not address or outweigh the harm I have identified above. Furthermore, given the harm caused from the combination of the changes to the building outlined above, extent of alterations required to make the proposal acceptable, and the need for further information, the imposition of conditions to secure revisions to the development would result in a new proposal and as such would not be reasonable. 26. I also acknowledge that the development would provide some employment and economic benefits from the construction works, improve the living condition of future occupiers and that the quality of work carried out is seeking to respect the building. Nonetheless, these matters do not outweigh the harm identified above. Conclusion 27. Overall, for the reasons given above, the development conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no other material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be dismissed. C Rose INSPECTOR