Demolition & replacement of existing porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 July 2026 by B Phillips BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 06 August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6006505 The Old Cowshed, 9 Turville Barns, Eastleach, Cirencester GL7 3QB • 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 Ainslie Drysdale against the decision of Cotswold District Council. • The application Ref is 25/03606/FUL. • The development proposed is the demolition & replacement of existing porch. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are the effect of the proposal on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA), whether the proposal would preserve the setting of adjacent listed building Nos 6, 7, 8 (Byre Cottage), Tallett Cottage and Scissor Cottage, and would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Eastleach Conservation Area (CA). Reasons Heritage Assets 3. No 9 Turville Barns is a single-storey dwelling and part of a wider former agricultural complex, converted to residential dwellings. The property is finished in a traditional vernacular style, constructed in rubble course Cotswold Limestone with stone quoins framing the window reveals. 4. Whilst it does have an existing porch, I observed that this is modest in scale, does not extend significantly above the eaves line, and the simple, linear form of the building is retained. Its original functional, vernacular and agricultural character remains evident. 5. The property is identified as a NDHA, and its significance in this regard in part lies with its retained agricultural character and as part of the wider former agricultural complex. 6. Byre Cottage ( 6, 7 and 8) Scissor Cottage, Tallett Cottage is a Grade II listed building 1, consisting of a large two storey former long barn, stables and cartsheds structure converted into residences. It was listed in 1980 and is mostly late 18 th century and early 19th century in its construction, with a late 20th century addition. It is constructed of r andom rubble limestone with a stone 1 List Entry Number: 1341413 Appeal Decision 6006505 2 slate roof. As the listing description notes, although altered upon conversion to domestic use, this range of farm buildings retains much of its architectural quality. 7. Given the above, I find that the special interest and significance of the listed building to be primarily associated with its historic and architectural interests as a good illustration of late 18th and 19th century vernacular agricultural architecture. Important contributors in these regards which are pertinent to the appeal are legibility of its retained simple form; extant historic fabric; and key historic features and detailing. 8. The setting of the listed building includes various other buildings, including the appeal property, which made up the wider farm complex and which retain their agricultural character. This setting allows the history and rural and agrarian character and merit of the building to be appreciated and is key to the way the heritage asset is experienced. 9. As such, the wider setting of the building makes a positive contribution to its significance. 10. The property is located within the Eastleach CA. I observed that the significance of the CA, which makes up the historic core of the village, as a whole largely derives from its rural character, with a green and verdant setting and the rich and cohesive number of vernacular historic buildings. As a part of its vernacular rural architectural form, the appeal property contributes positively to the character and appearance of the CA as a whole. Proposed development and effects 11. The proposed porch is substantially larger than the existing. Compared to the existing porch, it would project further out from the front elevation and visibly extend above the eaves line. This additional scale means that it would be read as an addition that would dominate the otherwise simple elevation and undermine the agricultural character of the building. It would hinder and obscure the legibility of its former function as a barn. Matching materials may tie the structures together but would not mitigate for the significant visual impact of the scale of the extension. 12. I conclude that the proposed works would fail to preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the NDHA and would harm its significance as a heritage asset. 13. This domestication and harm to the form of the appeal building would diminish the wider agricultural character of the former farm complex and would diminish the way Byre Cottage (6, 7 AND 8) Scissor Cottage, Tallett Cottage is experienced. 14. In this respect therefore I find that the proposed development would not preserve the setting of this listed building. It would therefore harm the significance of this designated heritage asset. 15. The above harm to significance would result in some residual harmful effect to the character and appearance of the CA. It would not therefore preserve the character and appearance of the CA as a whole and would also harm its significance as a designated heritage asset. Appeal Decision 6006505 3 Conclusion on heritage matters 16. Given the fairly localised nature of the works relative to the setting of listed building and CA as a whole, I find the harm to these heritage assets to be, individually and cumulatively, at a minor level of ‘less than substantial’ but nevertheless is of considerable importance and weight. In addition, a balanced judgement should be applied in relation to harm to NDHAs. 17. There would be some economic benefits brought about through the investment into the property and the construction phase. Also, social benefits would be gained through improvements to the local housing stock. Given the scale of the works, these benefits would each be small. 18. Paragraph 212 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicates that, when considering the impact on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance. On balance, in giving considerable importance and weight to the harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets, I find that this would not be outweighed by the public benefits that the proposal would generate. 19. Consequently, the harm identified to the significance of the designated heritage assets has not been supported by clear and convincing justification. Taking a balanced judgement, the benefits set out above also do not outweigh the identified harm to the NDHA. The works therefore would conflict with the statutory presumption set out in sections 66(1) and 72(1) of the Act and fail to satisfy the historic environment conservation and enhancement policies of the Framework. There is also conflict with Policies EN1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, and 13 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2011-31 (2018) (LP) insofar as these require development to promote the protection conservation and enhancement of the historic environment and landscape and set out that great weight will be given to an asset’s (including NDHA’s), significance and conservation. 20. LP Policy EN5 refers to the former Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and so is not determinative on this main matter. Other Matters 21. The special qualities of the Cotswolds National Landscape are set out in the Cotswolds National Landscape Management Plan (2025) (Management Plan). The appeal site does not directly contribute to any of the key attributes listed. Given this, the modest scale of the proposal and location of the proposal within the settlement surrounded by built form, in this case, the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Cotswold National Landscape would be conserved and unharmed. Conclusion 22. For the above reasons and having regard to all other matters raised I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. B Phillips INSPECTOR