First floor extension over an existing converted garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 June 2026 By G Powys Jones FRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008139 73 High Street, Kidlington, Oxfordshire, OX5 2DN • 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 & Mrs R Parshad against the decision of Cherwell District Council. • The application Ref is 25/03055/F. • The development is described as a first floor extension over an existing converted garage. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary and procedural matters 2. The application was one which would normally have been determined under the scheme of delegation to officers but was ‘called-in’ by the local ward councillor for determination by the Council’s Planning Committee. Officers recommended approval, but the Committee resolved to refuse permission. 3. In householder appeals such as this there is no provision for the Council to submit a statement of case. However, I have been provided with a copy of the relevant Committee minute, but this contains little information other than the application was refused for the reason set out in the Council’s decision notice. 4. Thus, the information originally before me, in addition to the minute, was a copy of the application and submitted plans, the officer report, copies of representations made by several parties and the appellants’ appeal statement. 5. At my request the Council provided the then existing and approved plans relating to the original decision to grant planning permission to extend the property1. They also clarified the background to the identification of the appeal property as a non- designated heritage asset (NDHA). These are matters of public record. 6. Following the original decision to grant permission the appellant proceeded with development. However, the works carried out were not in accordance with the approved plans. Following the Council’s intervention on issues of non-compliance, the appellants sought retrospective permissions, which included some amendments to that built, but both were refused permission by the Council2. The latter decision was subject of an appeal to the Secretary of State, which was 1 23/01073/F dated 19 June 2023 2 23/03368/F and 24/03350/F Appeal Decision 6008139 2 dismissed3. The scheme before me contains amendments to that before the previous Inspector. The planning history is material to my considerations. 7. The property was not identified as an NDHA when the original permission was granted in June 2023. It appears to have been first treated by the Council as an NDHA when application Ref 24/03350/F was being determined. The Council has confirmed that the whole of the structure of which the appeal property forms a part should be regarded as an NDHA4. Main Issue 8. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and its surroundings. Reasons 9. The Planning Practice Guidance provides that it is important that the decisions to identify non-designated heritage assets are based on sound evidence. However, no party to this appeal, including the appellant or the Council’s conservation officer, has seriously challenged the Council’s identification of the property as an NDNA. 10. The appellants question the significance attached to the historic T-shaped form of the building claimed by third parties, which they regard as ‘theoretical’. However, the appellants have not produced any relevant professional evidence directed to the heritage significance of the property with a view to questioning the identification of the building as an NDNA. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any other evidence, I have no reason to suspect that the Council’s decision to identify the building as a NDNA was not based on sound evidence. 11. The significance of the building is set out in the Council’s conservation officer’s response to consultation on the application and in the previous Inspector’s decision letter. The Inspector describes it thus: ‘The appeal property was previously a barn constructed in approximately 1773 and was likely to be associated with a property known as The Laurels, they were both possibly part of the larger Manor Farm complex. The building was subsequently divided into three cottages, possibly in the 1930’s. The building is linear and gable ended with a dual-pitched roof orientated to parallel with High Street. It is constructed of rubble stone and there have been alterations to the building with 77 High Street (No 77) being rendered white. There are contemporary windows, and 79 High Street (No 79) has rooflights. A chimney stack has been constructed and is located on the centre of the ridge of No 77…’ 12. The appellant relies heavily on the support given to the scheme by the Council’s officers, notably the conservation officer. In essence, the appellant supports the officer view that the significance of the original agricultural building has eroded over time. That may well be the case, but it strikes me that did not discourage or dissuade the Council from declaring it as a NDNA 2 years or so ago. 13. The appellant also supports the officer view that the amendments made to the scheme since the appeal decision would render the current scheme as close as practicable in terms of scale and massing to the scheme originally approved in 3 Ref APP/C3105/W/25/3367248 dated 1 September 2025 4 The original structure was split into 3 residential properties (Nos 73, 77 & 79 High Street) in or around 1930. Appeal Decision 6008139 3 2023. Officers, accordingly, are said to be conscious of the fall-back position and of the appellant’s permitted development rights, particularly in respect of re-roofing and the insertion of windows. 14. I have examined the plans approved under the terms of the original 2023, and the plans of the then-existing. What was originally approved as a simple, plain single- storey extension to a modest 2 bedroomed house has been unlawfully transformed into a 4-bedroomed house5 by the addition of a new floor above what was meant as a garage, and the insertion of several windows on two floors in the elevation facing the Tesco car park at the rear. Previously no new windows were proposed in this elevation. What has been built and what is proposed now are to my mind substantially different from that originally approved. 15. I note the weight given by the appellant and Council officers to permitted development rights. This concerns a matter of law, but it would take a great stretch of my imagination for me to be convinced that the unlawful development carried out, taking account of the amendments proposed now, could be represented as permitted development in the context of the originally approved scheme. 16. The accuracy of the originally approved plans has also been questioned in the representations, and it is claimed they were misleading. Were this found to be the case, the judgment in Choiceplace Properties Limited v Secretary of State for Housing Communities and Local Government [2021] EWHC 1070 becomes relevant in the context of a claimed fallback. 17. The extension is highly prominent to the many visitors to the adjacent car park. I found the extension, even with the minor changes proposed, to be of an excessive scale and mass in relation to that of the host property. Additionally, I consider the pattern of fenestration unlawfully introduced, even with the minor changes proposed, to be uncharacteristic and harmful when compared with the original proposal. Notwithstanding the justification provided in respect of the treatment of the roof, the colour of the tiles used jar against the colour of the tiles of the remainder of the NDHA. I saw the relatively modern surroundings to the building, but this does not justify the harmful changes made or proposed to a heritage asset. 18. The harm I have identified is less than substantial to the significance of the NDHA, but no public benefits have been claimed for the development. The residential use is by now historical, and no viability claim is made. 19. The amendments are said to be directed at and to address the previous Inspector’s concerns. If that is so they have not succeeded since the proposed amendments are in my view minor, making no significant difference to the scheme before the previous Inspector. As a matter of law, a level of consistency can be reasonably expected in Inspectors’ decision letters in similar cases6. That does not mean that I am inexorably tied to the previous Inspector’s assessment and conclusions, but I have no good reason to disagree with them, even when taking account of the minor amendments proposed. 20. I therefore conclude that the development, notwithstanding the amendments made, conflicts with those provisions of Policy ESD15 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011- 2031 Part One and Policies C28 and C30 of the Cherwell Local Plan 1996 which 5 What is described as a dressing room on the first floor in view of its size and direct linkage to a bathroom could easily be used as a bedroom 6 North Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1993) 65 P. & C.R. 137 Appeal Decision 6008139 4 seek to ensure developments are of a high design quality and are sympathetic to historic assets including NDHA’s. Other matters 21. It has been suggested in the representations that the property may be used as visitor accommodation but in the absence of convincing evidence to the contrary, I shall determine the appeal on the basis presented. The property is said by the appellants to be used as a family home and the additional living space is required to meet the needs of a larger household, necessary to support modern family living and well-being. I could not make out whether the building was occupied when I visited since the ground floor windows were obscured. I am however asked to consider the welfare of the occupants, including children and those with additional needs in line with the principles of the Children Act and the Equality Act. 22. The officer report says that the applicant (sic) has set out confidential personal circumstances relating to health issues affecting members of the household currently residing at the property provided in the form of a statutory declaration and supported by letters from relevant professions. The documents it appears set out the need for additional bedrooms at the property to accommodate the applicant’s family. 23. Whilst such information has been put before the Council, no such information has been submitted to me by the appellants to consider, and in the absence of such detail I am unable to appropriately consider family or health matters further. However, I note that the appellants were the applicants when planning permission was first granted for an extension to the two bedroomed house. That they subsequently and unlawfully make the accommodation larger was, it seems to me, a matter of personal choice, notwithstanding family circumstances. 24. All other matters raised in the representations have been considered, including the appellants’ account of the condition of the building, the reasons for the works undertaken, the retention of historic fabric and the reasons for the insertion of windows. The references to the Kidlington Framework Master Plan Supplementary Planning Document 2016 are noted as are the representations submitted by the Kidlington and District Historical Society, the Kidlington Parish Council and others. No other matter is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations leading to my conclusions. G Powys Jones INSPECTOR