Erection of rear single storey extension to dwelling to create additional bedroom

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 February 2026 by Hannah Guest BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001740 Menage View, Crowsmoor Farm, Aston on Clun SY7 8EF • 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 Will Chambers against the decision of Shropshire Council. • The application Ref is 25/03189/FUL. • The development proposed is described as “erection of rear single storey extension to dwelling to create additional bedroom”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of rear single storey extension to dwelling to create additional bedroom at Menage View, Crowsmoor Farm, Aston on Clun SY7 8EF in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/03189/FUL, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan, Drawing No: 767.04 B. Preliminary Matters 2. I have added Crowsmoor Farm to the address provided on the application form and replicated in the banner heading above, as this more accurately sets out the location of the appeal site. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the significance of the host dwelling as a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). Reasons 4. Crowsmoor Farm is a historic farmstead within a rural landscape and is identified in the Shropshire Environmental Record. The original 17th-century stone farmhouse survives, and several former agricultural buildings have since been converted to residential use. The appeal property is one such conversion and contributes to the farmstead’s overall historic character and significance. 5. I understand that prior to its residential conversion, the appeal site comprised two structures, a stable and a stone barn, positioned side by side in a tight linear Appeal Decision 6001740 2 arrangement. The original stone barn remains in situ, while the former stable block was rebuilt and linked to it to form the present appeal property. 6. The conversion has inevitably reduced the architectural and historic significance of the former farm buildings. Nonetheless, there is no dispute between the parties that the appeal property retains some significance. This derives from its age, modest scale, simple traditional form, agricultural character, and its contribution to the loose courtyard arrangement of the wider historic farmstead. 7. Paragraph 216 of the National Planning Policy Framework requires the effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset to be taken into account. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, it requires a balanced judgement having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. 8. The proposed extension, while modest in scale, would not read as a subservient addition. Its rear projection would interrupt the simple and traditional linear form of the dwelling, despite being separate from the more historic stone barn. 9. Notwithstanding this, the matching ridge and eaves heights would ensure the extension does not appear disproportionate, and the use of consistent materials would allow it to read as a harmonious addition rather than a visually dominant one. Positioned to the rear, it would be largely screened by the existing outbuilding and only visible from the adjacent farm and neighbouring property. 10. From the evidence before me and my observations on site, I am of the view that the appeal property has moderate significance as a NDHA. Although the interruption to its form would erode its agricultural character to a small degree, the resulting harm would be minimal. Crucially, the proposal would not diminish the ability to appreciate the architectural and historic significance of the appeal property and the wider farmstead. The historic environment would therefore be conserved. Consequently, there is no need to consider the public benefits of the proposal in this case. 11. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with Policies CS6 and CS17 of the Shropshire Local Development Framework: Adopted Core Strategy (2011) (Core Strategy) and Policies MD2 and MD13 of the Shropshire Council Site Allocations and Management of Development (SAMDev) Plan (2015) (SAMDev Plan). These seek to protect the historic environment by, among other things, ensuring all development is appropriate in scale, density, pattern and design. 12. The Council’s Decision Notice also refers to conflict with Policies CS5 of the Core Strategy and MD7a of the SAMDev Plan. However, these policies do not appear to be directly applicable to the modest extension of an established rural development, such as the appeal scheme. Other Matters 13. The Council has concluded that the proposal would not demonstrably harm the essentially open character or scenic beauty of the adjacent Shropshire Hills National Landscape. From the evidence before me and my observations on site, I can find no reason to disagree. Appeal Decision 6001740 3 Conditions 14. In addition to the standard time limit condition, a condition specifying the approved plans is necessary for reasons of certainty. For the same reason and to protect the character and appearance of the appeal property and wider farmstead, a condition is also required to ensure that the external materials used in the construction of the extension match those used in the existing dwelling. Conclusion 15. For the reasons above, I find that the proposal would accord with the development plan, read as a whole. Having had regard to all relevant material considerations, it has not been demonstrated that there are any of sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore allowed, subject to the conditions set out above. Hannah Guest INSPECTOR