Single Storey Extension to Rear

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 August 2026 by B Phillips BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24th September 2026 Appeal A Ref: 6010093 Pear Tree Barn, Old Gloucester Road, Alveston BS35 3TD • 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 Jonathan Stackhouse against the decision of South Gloucestershire Council. • The application Ref is P26/00442/HH. • The development proposed is a Single Storey Extension to Rear. Appeal B Ref: 6010098 Pear Tree Barn, Old Gloucester Road, Alveston BS35 3TD • 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 Jonathan Stackhouse against the decision of South Gloucestershire Council. • The application Ref is P26/00443/LB. • The works proposed are single storey oak framed extension to rear. Decision 1. Appeal A: The appeal is dismissed. 2. Appeal B: The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 3. In the interest of clarity, the I have removed wording from the banner above (appeal A) that does not describe development. 4. The appeals concern the same site and the same scheme. Although the remit of planning permission (Appeal A) and listed building consent (Appeal B) regimes are different, to reduce repetition, I have dealt with both appeals together in a single decision letter. 5. The Government published in August 2026 a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Council and the appellant have had opportunity to comment on this and I have taken into account any representations received. 6. With respect to Appeal A, the appeal site is located within the Green Belt. The Council has concluded that the development is not inappropriate in this respect, and having regard to the exception to development contained with Policy GB7 (b) of the Framework, and on the basis of the evidence before me, I have no reason to find differently in this regard. Appeal Decisions 6010093 & 6010098 2 Main Issues 7. The main issue in both appeals is therefore whether the proposal would preserve the curtilage listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest that it possesses. Reasons 8. Pear Tree Barn is a converted agricultural building and part of a wider former agricultural complex, converted to residential dwellings. It is a single storey building, with its walls constructed of coursed stone and having a mixture of shallow and steeply pitched roofs finished in pantiles. Whilst having modern windows, doors and rooflights and visibly now a dwelling, its simple, historic L shaped form is retained, and its original functional, vernacular and agricultural character remains evident. 9. Whilst not listed in its own right, it is agreed by the main parties that, for the purposes of section 1(5) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act), the property is curtilage listed due to its direct association and proximity to the Grade II listed1 Angers Farmhouse, including when the farmhouse was listed. Angers Farmhouse is originally a 17th century property, with later additions including a 18th century attached stables. It is two storeys constructed of rubble, rendered, double Roman pantiled roofs, with casement windows. 10. Given the above, I find that the special interest and significance of Angers Farmhouse to be primarily associated with its historic and architectural interests as a good illustration of late 17th and 18th century vernacular rural architecture. Important contributors in these regards which are pertinent to the appeal are legibility of its retained simple form; extant historic fabric, key historic features and detailing and relationship with its rural surroundings. 11. Pear Tree Barn is part of the wider farm complex which retains its agricultural personality and allows the history and rural and agrarian character and merit of Angers Farmhouse to be appreciated. Its significance arises from its retained overall form and typology, and its spatial and visual relationship with Angers Farmhouse. 12. The proposed extension would project from the side of Pear Tree Barn, awkwardly extending the footprint when viewing the southeast elevation for example. Whilst stepped away to introduce an element of separation, it would nevertheless, given its scale, proximity and highly glazed design, contrast harmfully with the simple original form of the building. 13. Whilst subservient in height and scale to the main structure, it would overwhelm the otherwise simple form and undermine the agricultural character of the building. The stepped design would not prevent the extension hindering and obscuring the legibility of the former function of the building as a barn. The expansive glazing may make the extension appear more lightweight; however, it would appear incongruous in the context of the existing restrained fenestration pattern. Matching materials, including a tiled roof, may tie the structures together but would not mitigate for the significant visual impact of the scale of the extension. 1 List Entry No.1321101 Appeal Decisions 6010093 & 6010098 3 14. I conclude that the proposed works would fail to preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the curtilage listed building and would harm its significance as a heritage asset. 15. This domestication and harm to the form of the appeal building would diminish the wider agricultural character of the former farm complex and erode the connection between the buildings to the detriment of their historic interest. The development and works would therefore affect the authenticity of how Angers Farmhouse is experienced and would alter the ability to appreciate its significance. It would consequently also harm the significance of this designated heritage asset. 16. Given the stepped off nature of the extension and the fairly localised nature of the works relative to the building and Angers Farmhouse, I find the degree of harm to both heritage assets to be, individually and cumulatively, at a low level but nevertheless is of considerable importance and weight. 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 and standard of accommodation. 18. There is little evidence before me that maintaining or securing a use consistent with conservation of the property, including its continued occupation and upkeep, is dependent on the proposed extension, or that it is required to support year- round occupation. 19. Even if other consented works may have diluted the original agricultural character of individual neighbouring buildings and the wider complex, these do not provide justification for further harmful works in this respect. 20. The Framework indicates that, when considering the impact on the significance of a designated heritage asset, substantial weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. 21. This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to positive effect, harm, substantial harm, or total loss of its significance. On balance, in giving considerable importance and weight to the harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset, I find that this would not be outweighed by the public benefits that the proposal would generate. 22. Consequently, the harm identified to the significance of the designated heritage assets has not been supported by clear and convincing justification. The works therefore would conflict with the statutory presumptions set out in sections 16(2) and 66(1) of the Act, and fail to satisfy the historic environment conservation and enhancement policies of the Framework. There is also conflict with Policies CS1 and Policy CS9 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-2027 (2013) and Policies PSP1, PSP17 and PSP38 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan, Policies, Sites and Places Plan (2017) insofar as these collectively require high-quality design that conserves or enhances historic assets. Other Matters 23. Issues are raised regarding the lack of engagement and cooperation by the Council, however this is not a matter for the appeal before me. Appeal Decisions 6010093 & 6010098 4 Conclusion 24. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeals should be dismissed. B Phillips INSPECTOR