Two storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 June 2026 by R Hall BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 June 2026. Appeal A: 6005290 The Old Smithy, Main Street, Elmley Castle, Worcestershire WR10 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 Ms Fleur Ansell against the decision of Wychavon District Council. • The application reference is W/25/01806/HP. • The development proposed is described as ‘two storey rear extension’. Appeal B: 6005291 The Old Smithy, Main Street, Elmley Castle, Worcestershire WR10 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 Ms Fleur Ansell against the decision of Wychavon District Council. • The application reference is W/25/01805/LB. • The works proposed are described as ‘two storey rear extension’. Decision Appeal A 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal B 2. The appeal is dismissed. Applications for costs 3. An application for an award of costs was made by the appellant against the Council. This is the subject of a separate decision. Preliminary Matters 4. The planning application was refused only due to the impact of the proposal on the occupants of Drakeley Cottage. Whereas, the listed building decision notice refers to harm to the special architectural and historic interest of the LB due to the loss and alteration of its historic fabric, and that listed building consent is not justified in the absence of planning permission. I note that the Council’s officer report referred to the effect of the proposal in creating a non-linear footprint as having some impact on the understanding of the historic building, albeit no objection was raised by the conservation officer and the report concluded that it would not amount to less than substantial harm. 5. Nonetheless, as the proposal relates to a listed building I am required to have special regard to sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Appeal Decision 6005290 2 Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act). Accordingly, the appellant was given the opportunity to comment on whether the effect of the proposal on the grade II listed building should be a main issue in the planning appeal, despite it not being a reason for refusal. Their comments have been taken into account in this decision. Main Issues 6. The main issues are whether the proposal would preserve a Grade II listed building known as “The Old Smithy” (Ref: 1116618) (the LB), or any of the features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses; and whether it would be acceptable with respect to the living conditions of the occupants of Drakeley Cottage, with particular regard to light. Reasons Listed building 7. The LB dates from the 17th century and is a timber framed building of rubblestone, with three gabled dormers on its front elevation. It has sections of brick infill at first floor level to the rear and side indicating a historic upwards extension. Although thought historically to have been divided into three units, the building has a simple, rectangular footprint that is characteristic of its former use as a smithy. On the rear elevation, there is dentilation of the brickwork at the eaves. This extends across the full width of the building, save for where a dormer window has been inserted, creating a cohesive appearance. Timber framing is visible on the rear elevation. This is most prominent in the central of its three bays. Given the above, I find that the special interest of the LB, insofar as it relates to these appeals, to be primarily derived from its illustration of a 17th century smithy, in a vernacular style. Important contributions are its surviving historic fabric, together with its historic rectangular plan form, and architectural detailing. 8. The proposal includes the partitioning of an upstairs room to create a bathroom. The evidence before me indicates that this could be achieved without the loss of historic fabric or diminishing the ability to appreciate the building’s historic plan form. In respect of the proposed rear extension, its location would retain the most distinctive section of timber framing that is visible on the central bay of the rear elevation. It would instead affect the bay closest to Drakeley Cottage. The Council’s Conservation Officer response refers to that rear wall having been rebuilt in modern brick in the 20th century. It is clear that alterations have taken place, particularly inside the building. However, the ground floor external walling of that rear elevation is stone rather than brick and appears consistent with the rest of the ground floor external fabric. Consequently, I consider the loss of rubblestone walling at groundfloor level would involve the loss of some historic fabric. It would also require the removal of a timber lintel and the brick walling and dentilation above. Although not all original to the building, these elements contribute to an understanding of the building’s vernacular architecture. 9. In addition, the proposal would comprise a sizeable two storey extension resulting in an L-shaped footprint. The proposed ridge line would be slightly lower than the main part of the house, and its eaves would be consistent with existing. Also, the depth of the extension would be slightly less than the depth of the existing building and would extend across circa one third of the rear elevation. Nevertheless, it would appear as a substantial rear projection, and would add substantial areas of Appeal Decision 6005290 3 pitched roof above its first floor extension. It would also include a single storey lean-to extension within the crook of the L-shape. This would add bulk to the extension, all of which would be apparent when viewed from the rear garden. From there the extension would appear to overwhelm the historically modest form of the building, even taking into account the raised level of the rear garden. 10. Other rear extensions have taken place along Main Street. However, the appeal building retains its historic rectangular footprint, characteristic of its former use. As such, I find that the proposal would not appear subservient to the LB but would instead appear unduly dominant, detracting from the ability to appreciate its historic plan form. 11. I recognise that listed building consent was previously granted for a very similar rear extension on this site and that consistency in decision making is important. Also, that the Council advised the appellant via email that if planning permission was to be granted at appeal, it would not seek to defend the listed building appeal. Nonetheless, as the proposal concerns a listed building I am required to consider the evidence afresh and have reached a different conclusion for the reasons given. 12. Therefore, I cannot find otherwise than that the proposal would result in the loss of historic fabric, harm the architectural integrity of the rear elevation and result in the loss of its characteristic rectangular plan form. It would therefore fail to preserve the special interest of the LB. Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (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 goes on to advise that significance can be harmed or lost through the alteration or destruction of those assets and that any such harm should have a clear and convincing justification. 13. Given the modest scope of the works as a whole, I find the harm to be less than substantial in this instance but nevertheless of considerable importance and weight. Where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use. 14. The proposal would create more usable living space. However, this is primarily a private benefit. Given the scale of the works and that it relates to a single house, the extent to which it would represent an improvement to local housing stock would be very limited. I recognise that there is some local support for improvements to the building to make it more attractive accommodation for a family. However, it seems to me that the existing building could reasonably accommodate a family. Moreover, there is no substantive evidence that the continued viable use of the appeal property as a residential dwelling is dependent on the proposal, as the building has an ongoing residential use that would not cease in its absence. 15. Accordingly, public benefits arising from the proposal would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm that would be caused. Therefore I conclude that, on balance, the proposed works would fail to preserve the special historic interest of the LB. This would fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and paragraph 210(a) of the Framework. Insofar as relevant, the proposal would not accord with the requirements of Policies SWDP6 and SWDP24 of the South Worcestershire Appeal Decision 6005290 4 Development Plan (February 2016) (Local Plan) which generally seek to protect the historic environment. Whilst there is some local support for the proposal, for the reasons given, that is not sufficient to outweigh the harm identified in this instance. Living conditions 16. Drakeley Cottage (the Cottage) is situated alongside the LB. Its living room fronts on to Main Street with a three light window facing on to the road and a smaller, two light window on the opposing wall facing to the rear. The Cottage has side windows that face towards the LB, including a glazed door and window used as its main entrance. Along from this are the ground and first floor bathroom windows that face onto the appeal site. Beyond those is a ground floor opening to the kitchen that is blocked off, and a first floor bedroom dormer window. The kitchen and rear bedroom also have rear windows that face towards the rear garden of the Cottage. For the avoidance of doubt, the extent to which the Cottage has been previously extended is not relevant to the consideration of whether the proposed development would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of the Cottage. 17. The appellant does not dispute that the proposal would result in the 25-degree line and the 45-degree lines being breached for the Cottage and no robust evidence is before me to indicate otherwise. However, the only habitable room window that would face directly on to the appeal scheme would be the first floor side facing bedroom window. As that bedroom also has a good sized rear facing window on to its garden, I find that the proposal would not unacceptably compromise the daylight or sunlight in that room. Other side facing windows at the Cottage are for bathrooms and the side door. Therefore, those windows do not relate to habitable rooms in which occupants typically spend much time. Consequently, the potential change to daylight or sunlight to these windows resulting from this proposal would not be to the extent that it would harm the living conditions in the Cottage. 18. In addition, the appellant submitted a daylight and sunlight study by Smith Marston Building Surveyors (May 2024) (the study). This assessed the potential change to the available sky component and daylight distribution for habitable rooms at the Cottage. It found that none of the habitable rooms at the Cottage would be subject to a harmful reduction in their available skylight or daylight, using the criteria recommended in the Building Research Establishment guide1. With regard to loss of sunlight, this test only applies to habitable room windows that face within 90 degrees of due south. The study also indicates that there would be no harmful loss of sunlight in habitable rooms at the Cottage. I note concern about the impact of the proposal on sunlight reaching the rear facing living room window, particularly in winter. However, as that window is positioned greater than 90 degrees from due south, with garages opposite, it would be unlikely to receive much direct sunlight in any event. Moreover, its larger front facing window would be unaffected by the proposal. As such, I am satisfied that any change to light to that window would be very limited, and not to the extent that it would be harmful to the living conditions of the occupants of the Cottage. 19. The appeal scheme would be prominent from the driveway between the Cottage and the appeal site and there would be a reduction in natural light there to a 1 Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: a guide to good practice, by P J Littlefair 2011 (3rd Edition, June 2022) Appeal Decision 6005290 5 certain extent. Nonetheless, the main garden to the Cottage is to the rear of its house and would be unaffected by the proposal. As such, I find that light in the private garden of the Cottage would not be compromised. 20. Questions have been raised by local residents about the suitability of the study. However, it seems to me that the assessment was sufficiently robust, having regard to relevant guidance. Furthermore, I have also had regard to the specific circumstances at the appeal site, including site levels, and have given consideration to seasonal variations. 21. Drawing this together, I conclude that the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupants of Drakeley Cottage, with particular regard to light. As such, with respect to this main issue, the proposal would comply with Policy SWDP21 of the Local Plan which includes requirements for proposals to respect neighbouring amenity. Other Matters 22. The Council did not identify any harm in respect of the effect of the proposal on the character or appearance of the Elmley Castle Conservation Area (the CA). The extent to which the proposed changes would be visible from the public domain would be very limited, and they would only have limited prominence from the private domain. Paragraph 220 of the Framework states 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 and would thus preserve its significance. 23. There are a number of other listed buildings in the vicinity of the appeal site. The Council did not identify any harm in respect of the effect of the appeal scheme on the significance of any heritage assets other than the appeal building. On the evidence before me, including my own observations, I see no reason to conclude otherwise. 24. Local residents have raised concerns about the effect of the proposal on the outlook from the Cottage. I note that the proposal would be located less than 12m from Drakeley Cottage, an approximate separation distance sought in the Council’s Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (March 2018) (SPD). In respect of the Cottage’s first floor rear bedroom, as noted above, due to the presence of a rear facing window in that room that would be unaffected by the proposal, I find that the proximity of the appeal scheme to its side facing window would not give rise to an unacceptable outlook from that room. 25. The rear living room window at the Cottage faces down towards the garages rather than looking directly onto the appeal site. Consequently, the extent to which outlook from that window would be changed would be more limited than those facing directly on to the appeal site. Given the limited number of habitable rooms looking directly onto the appeal scheme, and the presence of other windows in those habitable rooms, I find that the outlook from those rooms would not be so changed as to result in harmful living conditions. 26. Other concerns have been raised by interested parties in respect of matters such as light pollution, drainage impacts and a lack of parking provision. However as the appeal is being dismissed there is no need to address these matters further. Appeal Decision 6005290 6 Conclusion 27. For the reasons given with regard to Appeal A, due to the harm to the listed building the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no considerations that would outweigh that conflict. 28. Consequently, given the above and considering all other matters raised, the appeals should be dismissed. R Hall INSPECTOR