Erection of an enclosed porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 June 2026 by A James BSc (Hons) MA MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1st July 2026 Appeal A: 6004003 Bentfield Farm, The Annexe, Bentfield Bury Road, Bentfield Bower, Stansted, Essex CM24 8TL • 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 Frances Lyons against the decision of Uttlesford District Council. • The application reference is UTT/25/2453/HHF. • The development proposed is erection of an enclosed porch. Appeal B: 6004005 Bentfield Farm, The Annexe, Bentfield Bury Road, Bentfield Bower, Stansted, Essex CM24 8TL • 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 Mrs Frances Lyons against the decision of Uttlesford District Council. • The application reference is UTT/25/2454/LB. • The works proposed relate to the erection of an enclosed porch. Decisions 1. Appeal A is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of an enclosed porch at Bentfield Farm, The Annexe, Bentfield Bury Road, Bentfield Bower, Stansted, Essex CM24 8TL in accordance with the terms of the application, reference UTT/25/2453/HHF and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: 2429.01C and 2429.04. 3) The external materials for the porch hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 2. Appeal B is allowed and listed building consent is granted for the erection of an enclosed porch at Bentfield Farm, The Annexe, Bentfield Bury Road, Bentfield Bower, Stansted, Essex CM24 8TL in accordance with the terms of the application reference UTT/25/2454/LB and the plans submitted with it and subject to the following condition: 1) The works hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. Appeal Decisions – Appeal A: 6004003 and Appeal B: 6004005 2 Preliminary Matters 3. As the proposal relates to a listed building, I have had special regard to sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act). 4. Following the Council’s determination of these applications, the Council adopted the Uttlesford Local Plan 2021-2041 (the Local Plan) on the 26 March 2026. The Local Plan replaces the Uttlesford Local Plan 2005; the policies of which were cited in the Council’s reasons for refusal. I am required to determine these appeals against the current development plan for the area at the time of my decisions. The Council has provided details of the Local Plan policies, which they consider are relevant to these appeals. Given the consistency of the new policies with those in the previous Local Plan, I have not sought comments from the appellant on this matter. Main Issue 5. The main issue is whether the proposal would preserve a Grade II listed building, known as ‘Bentfieldbury’ (Ref: 1275217), and any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses. Reasons 6. Bentfieldbury is a Grade II listed building. The listing description states that the building dates back to the 17th century and features 19th and 20th century alterations and additions. However, the appellant’s evidence indicates that the building is of a later date. Nevertheless, it is still of some age. The oldest part of the building (the main range) has a timber frame and a linear plan form. The main range features traditional leaded light windows and has a rendered finish. A parallel rear pile was added around the early-19th century and another rear projection (the subject of this appeal) was added around the mid-19th century. Around the turn of the 20th century, a two storey side extension was added to the main range, which has a gable end and a projecting bay window. The building was subdivided into three residential units in the early-21st century. 7. Based on my site visit and the evidence before me, I find that the listed building’s special interest insofar as is relevant to these appeals is derived from its historic and architectural interests as an illustration of a historic farmhouse, that has evolved over the centuries. The building’s surviving historic fabric, presence of traditional materials and the legibility of its historic plan form make important contributions in these regards. 8. This appeal relates to a part single storey and part two storey rear projection, which is known as The Annexe and was formerly the service wing for the building. This part of the building was substantially altered during the conversion works. Such works included the creation of the entrance door from a former window opening and changes to the internal layout. The single storey part of the building is constructed of red brick, which incorporates a herringbone style design. It features traditional, timber sash windows and has a plain tile roof. While this part of the building is of a later date than the main range; is of a different architectural style; and, features different external materials and window designs, it is still of architectural and historic merit and contributes to the special interest of the listed building. Appeal Decisions – Appeal A: 6004003 and Appeal B: 6004005 3 9. The proposal seeks to provide a porch for The Annexe. The proposed porch would have a catslide roof and would utilise materials that would match this part of the building. The elevation of the building in which the porch would be sited, comprises of a variety of different ridge heights and external materials. It does not display the same sense of linearity as the main range due to the presence of the projecting gable and bay window. 10. The proposed porch would be modest in size and massing. It would be set back behind the gable end and projecting bay window and would appear as a subservient addition to the listed building. The design of the porch is simple and understated, which helps to ensure that it is seen as a secondary entrance to the building; thus, preserving the building’s architectural hierarchy and interest. Although the porch would be visible from the public realm, given its modest size, low-key design, its set back nature when compared to the existing gable end and the presence of existing boundary treatment, means that it would not appear as a prominent feature. In addition, given its set back position in relation to the projecting gable and bay, I do not find that it would conflict with the principal elevation of the building. 11. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would preserve the special interest of the listed building. The proposal would satisfy the requirements of the Act and the historic environment policies of the National Planning Policy Framework. The proposal would also comply with Policies 52 and 62 of the Local Plan. These policies among other things require that proposals are of good design and that they retain the special interest of a listed building through appropriate design that is sympathetic to the asset in terms of siting, scale, alignment, materials, finishes, detail and form. Conditions 12. In the interests of certainty, a condition specifying timescales is required for both appeals and an approved plans condition is required for Appeal A. A matching materials condition is also required for Appeal A, to ensure that the external materials assimilate well with those on the host building. Conclusion 13. For the above reasons and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that both appeals should be allowed. A James INSPECTOR