Restoration and enhancement of the original cottage, revised two- storey side extension, external material alterations across the site

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 September 2026 by S Sharp BSc(Hons) BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30th September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6014929 Pennys, Blackwater Road, Buckland St Mary, Chard, Somerset TA20 3LD • 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 George Bannister against the decision of Somerset Council. • The application reference is 26/00744/HOU. • The development proposed is restoration and enhancement of the original cottage, revised two- storey side extension, external material alterations across the site. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. I have used the description from the amended application form included in the appellant’s evidence, restricting the content to the elements of the proposal that are development and removing the bullet points. 3. Some of the evidence refers to the appeal site’s address as Blackmoor House but I have used the address given in the application form. Main Issues 4. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on: • the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area including the special qualities of the Blackdown Hills National Landscape; and, • protected species, specifically bats. Reasons Character and appearance 5. The appeal site is located within the countryside, at the end of a small group of dwellings, set within the Blackdown Hills National Landscape. The host dwelling dates from the late nineteenth century. It is a two-storey cottage that has been the subject of alterations such as a corrugated metal roof covering and replacement windows. At the time of my site visit, building work was being undertaken and some of the window frames and glazing had been removed as had the render covering from the front elevation, and the front porch. However, the overall simple single coped gabled form with a rear outshut, devoid of elaborate detailing, remained. It is characteristic of the Blackdown Hills vernacular for a modest Appeal Decision 6014929 2 dwelling associated with the agrarian landscape. Such buildings are one of the special qualities of this designation. 6. The aesthetic and historical qualities of the host dwelling are apparent from the road and from the public right of way (PROW) that follows the driveway and passes directly past one of the side elevations. The dwelling is prominent as one traverses this public route, and it is part of the PROW’s experience. The qualities that the host dwelling possesses, its contribution to the Blackdown Hills’ landscape, and its prominence from these public visual receptors means that it is sensitive to change. 7. The proposed development would be subservient in terms of its floorspace, footprint and height to the host dwelling. It would also be faced in materials to reflect the vernacular palette found locally. The proposed use of a gable, perpendicular to that of the host dwelling’s, also disaggregates the mass. 8. However, the proposed projection of this gable forward of the existing elevation, its width, and the size of its proposed windows, would result in it being visually discordant with, and dominant over the host dwelling. This discordance and dominance would result in a substantially harmful effect to the vernacular character and appearance that the dwelling possesses. The harm would be compounded by the proposed gable’s perpendicular alignment to the existing gable. Whilst disaggregating the mass, this would result in an overly complicated arrangement that loses the host dwelling’s simple agrarian cottage form. 9. Such harm would be apparent from the public receptors on Blackwater Road in front of the appeal site and from the PROW. Given the importance of buildings such as the host dwelling to the character and appearance of the wider area, there would also be resultant substantial harm to the special qualities of the Blackdown Hills National Landscape. 10. For these reasons the proposed development would conflict with policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2015) (SSLP) which seeks to ensure that developments are designed to achieve a high quality, which promote the SSLP area’s distinctiveness and preserve or enhance its character and appearance. It would also conflict with policy HG8 of the SSLP which states that extensions to dwellings in the countryside will be permitted where, amongst other things, the size and design of the extension are appropriate to the landscape character of the location. Protected species 11. From the evidence before me, the protected species that could be affected by the development proposed are bats. A Preliminary Bat and Bird Survey Report dated August 2026, incorporating findings and recommendations following emergence surveys, was included with the appellant’s evidence but was not included in the suite of documents that the Council considered at the application stage. 12. The householder appeal procedure does not afford the opportunity for the Council or interested parties to respond to the appellant's evidence. Therefore, in the interests of fairness, I can only take into account matters that have been properly placed before the main parties and interested parties at the application stage. To accept this evidence at this stage would deprive those who should have been consulted the opportunity of such consultation. Therefore, I have not taken this Appeal Decision 6014929 3 evidence into account and have determined the appeal on the basis of the evidence that was before the Council at the time of its decision. 13. As such, there is insufficient evidence that I can consider to enable me to fully assess the effect of the development on bats. The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy EQ4 of the SSLP. This policy states that, where there is a reasonable likelihood of the presence of protected and priority species, development design should be informed by, and applications should be accompanied by, a survey and impact assessment assessing their presence. Other Matters 14. Schedule 7A (Biodiversity Gain in England) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 introduced a requirement for biodiversity net gain (BNG). However, in this instance, the proposed development would benefit from the de minimis exemption. 15. The appellant has drawn my attention to extensions and alterations that were granted planning permission (Council reference 22/01987/HOU) at Apple Tree Lodge. This property is within the same group of dwellings as the appeal property, and I was able to view it from the road following my site visit. The development permitted appears to have been implemented. However, I note that the host dwelling was a modern bungalow. There is also no PROW running through the property and it is less prominent in the landscape, being within the group rather than at the end of it. These are material differences to the appeal property’s characteristics and context. I therefore afford this matter very minor weight as a material consideration and it is not determinative to my decision. 16. I note that there are supportive comments from an interested party. I have had regard to these comments and acknowledge that the appellant, through the proposed development, is seeking to bring back a currently vacant property back into habitation. This use would have benefits from future occupiers being members of and supporting the local community. I afford very minor weight to this matter as it is the reuse of the property rather than the specific development proposed that affords these benefits. 17. The Council’s decision notice cites other SSLP policies in addition to those which I have cited already in this decision. The first of these policies is SS1 which provides the SSLP’s hierarchy of settlements to guide growth across its area. There is no conflict with this policy per se, but it clarifies that the appeal site lies within the countryside, which confirms the applicability of policy HG8. The other policy is SD1 which states that the Council will take a proactive approach to reflect the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). 18. The Framework is a material consideration. Policy S5 applies to proposed developments outside of settlements, such as the appeal site. Paragraph 1 of the policy states that, subject to caveats, only certain forms of development should be approved in these locations. One such type of development is listed in category 1 c). This is the reuse, extension, alteration or replacement of an existing building as proposed here. The caveats to the policy are that the existing building is of permanent and substantial construction and lawful in planning terms. Such matters are not in dispute. Further caveats are that the extension or alteration would not result in a disproportionate increase in size compared to the existing building, which in footprint, floorspace and height terms it would not. Appeal Decision 6014929 4 19. However, policy S5 also states that the proposed development should be approved, unless the benefits of doing so would be substantially outweighed by any adverse effects, when assessed against the Framework’s national decision- making policies (NDMPs). 20. A relevant NDMP given the Blackdown Hills location is policy N4. This advises that development proposals within Protected Landscapes (PT) should be limited in scale and extent and sensitively located and designed to avoid harm to the statutory purposes and special qualities of the PT. The policy continues by clarifying that substantial weight should be placed on the importance of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of these areas. I have already found that the proposed development would result in substantial harm to the special qualities of the landscape and, as such, there would be conflict with policy N4 too. 21. A further relevant NDMP is DP3. It advises that development proposals should respond to their context (the history, character and features of their site and its setting), so that they integrate with and enhance their surroundings. For the reasons I have already given, there would be conflict with this policy. 22. Turning to the Framework’s relevance to the second main issue in my decision, NDMP N2 criterion f) states that development proposals should, amongst other things, minimise any adverse impacts on biodiversity. Given that I cannot accept the bat emergence survey as evidence, I cannot be certain that there would be accordance with this criterion. 23. There are benefits afforded by the proposed development such as the facilitation of the dwelling’s re-habitation, the contribution future occupiers would make to the community, and the improved energy performance and long-term durability of the dwelling’s fabric as cited in the appellant’s evidence. However, I afford these benefits minor weight and, for the reasons I have given above, they would be substantially outweighed by the adverse effects when assessed against the Framework’s NDMPs. As such, support is not forthcoming when the proposed development is assessed against policy S5. 24. Having considered the Framework’s provisions, I find that the relevant development plan policies are consistent with it in this instance. Conclusion 25. There are material considerations that I have had regard to and afforded weight in the overall planning balance. However, they do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. 26. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. S Sharp INSPECTOR