Erection of oak framed garden room to the rear

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: 07 July 2026 Appeal A: 6004961 Corner House, The Street, Little Dunmow, Essex CM6 3HS • 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 Jack Nethercott of Prime Oak against the decision of Uttlesford District Council. • The application reference is UTT/25/3058/LB. • The works proposed are erection of oak framed garden room to the rear. Appeal B: 6004962 Corner House, The Street, Little Dunmow, Essex CM6 3HS • 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 Jack Nethercott of Prime Oak against the decision of Uttlesford District Council. • The application reference is UTT/25/3057/HHF. • The development proposed is erection of oak framed garden room to the rear. Decisions 1. Appeal A is dismissed. 2. Appeal B is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 3. As the appeal site lies within a conservation area and relates to a listed building, I have had special regard to sections 16(2), 66(1) and 72(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 decision notices. I am required to determine these appeals against the current development plan 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 that the relevant policy objectives remain materially unchanged, I have not sought comments from the appellant on this matter. Main Issues 5. The main issues are whether the proposal would preserve a Grade II listed building, known as ‘Corner House’ (Ref: 1168291), and any of the features of Appeal Decisions – Appeal A: 6004961 and Appeal B: 6004962 2 special architectural or historic interest that it possesses and whether the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the Little Dunmow Conservation Area. Reasons Listed building 6. Corner House is a Grade II listed building, which dates back to the 17th century. It is one storey high with attic and has a clay tiled roof. The historic core of the building has a timber frame and rectangular plan form, which sits perpendicular to the street. The building was extended to the rear and side in the 20th century. The building is finished with render and predominantly features traditional-style, timber, casement windows. 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 domestic architecture from the 17th century, which has evolved over the centuries. The building’s surviving historic fabric, including its timber frame, its pleasing architectural design and use of traditional materials make important contributions in these regards. 8. The proposal seeks to provide an oak-framed garden room to the rear of the building, which would infill a gap between the 20th century rear and side projections. Accordingly, this gap is not historically significantly. The proposal would utilise traditional materials and would be of a contemporary, lightweight design. Given the extent of glazing proposed, the existing building would remain visible through the extension. The proposal would be modest in size and would appear subordinate in relation to the host dwelling. However, the listed building has already been subject to multiple additions and alterations, which have reduced the legibility of its historic plan form. In combination with the existing 20th century additions, the proposal would overwhelm the historic core of the building and would further erode its historic plan form. 9. The proposed roof form, including the flat roof elements and the extent of glazing, (including within the gable and the rooflights) would harmfully discord with the more traditional roof forms and domestic-style glazing found on the host building. I appreciate that there are already French doors to the rear of the building; however, the French doors are an anomaly, rather than the norm. Nonetheless, the proposal would significantly increase the extent of glazing when compared to that on the existing building and the design of the proposal would discord with the more traditional architecture found on the listed building. 10. As the proposal would be sited adjacent to modern parts of the building, it would not result in the loss of any historic fabric or obscure any historic features. The proposal would also be sited to the rear of the building and would not alter the principal elevation. Only glimpses of the proposed extension would be visible from the public realm. Nevertheless, listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of whether or not public views of the building can be gained. 11. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal scheme would fail to preserve the special interest of the listed building. Appeal Decisions – Appeal A: 6004961 and Appeal B: 6004962 3 Conservation Area 12. The appeal site lies within the Little Dunmow Conservation Area (CA). The significance of the CA insofar as is relevant to these appeals is derived from the concentration of high quality historic buildings from various periods, the prevalence of traditional materials and its verdant character. Corner House is set back from the highway, behind a small, well-landscaped front garden. The front elevation is highly visible from the public realm. 13. Despite the harm that would be caused to the listed building, I do not find that the proposal would be detrimental to the character or appearance of the CA. The proposal would be single storey in height and sited to the rear of the building. Only glimpses of the proposed extension would be visible from the public domain. Under such circumstances, case law1 has established that proposals must be judged according to their effect on a CA as a whole and must therefore have a moderate degree of prominence. Given the above, I find that the proposal would not be detrimental to the CA, as a whole and would thus preserve its significance. Public benefits and heritage balance 14. Although I find that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CA, for the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would fail to preserve the special interest of the listed building. 15. Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that when considering the impact of development on the significance of designated heritage assets, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Paragraph 213 advises that significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of those assets and that any such harm should require clear and convincing justification. Given the nature and extent of the proposal, I find the harm to the special interest of the listed building to be ‘less than substantial’ and at the lower end of the scale. However, this should not be equated with a less than substantial planning objection and is of considerable importance and weight. Paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including where appropriate, securing the asset’s optimum viable use. 16. The proposal would result in investment into the property, which would result in a small economic benefit, which I give limited weight in my decision as a public benefit. The appellant argues that the proposal would improve internal light levels and the quality, functionality and energy efficiency of the dwelling. Nonetheless, any improvements in respect to energy efficiency and levels of internal light have not been quantified. Given that the proposal relates to a single property, any environmental benefits which would flow to the public at large are likely to be minimal. It is clear that the benefits that would accrue would primarily be of a private nature. 17. The appellant argues that the extension is reversible; however, there is no compelling evidence before me that once constructed, the extension would ever be removed. I therefore give this argument limited weight in my decision. There is also no compelling evidence before me that the optimum viable use of the asset as a dwelling would cease in the absence of the proposal. As a result, I do not find 1 South Oxfordshire DC v SSE & J Donaldson [1991] CO/1440/89 Appeal Decisions – Appeal A: 6004961 and Appeal B: 6004962 4 the appeal scheme necessary to secure the viability and long-term conservation of the building. 18. Overall, I give the public benefits limited weight in my decision. Consequently, in attributing great weight to the harm that would be caused to the significance of the designated heritage asset, I find that there are insufficient public benefits arising from the appeal scheme to outweigh this harm. 19. Given the above, I conclude that, on balance, the appeal scheme would fail to preserve the special interest of the listed building. Accordingly, it would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the historic environment policies of the Framework. The appeal scheme would also conflict with Core Policy 62 of the Local Plan. This policy among other things requires that proposals retain the special interest of a listed building through appropriate design that is sympathetic to the asset. Conclusion 20. Appeal A: For the reasons given above, Appeal A is dismissed. 21. Appeal B: The appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, for the reasons given above, Appeal B is dismissed. A James INSPECTOR