Appeal Decision 3252979 (Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council) — 2021-01-04

Appeal Decision 3252979 (Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council) — 2021-01-04
Outcome: Split decision
Case type: Planning Appeal
Development: Other minor developments
Appeal type: Written Representations
Location: Holly Cottage, Winchester Road, Newtown Common, NEWBURY, RG20 9DD
Postcode: RG20 9DD
LPA: Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council
LPA code: E07000084
PINS reference: 3252979

=== FULL INSPECTOR DECISION ===

Appeal Decisions
Site visit made on 27 November 2020
by Graham Dudley BA (Hons) Arch Dip Cons AA RIBA
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 4 January 2021

Appeal A: APP/H1705/Y/20/3252978
Holly Cottage, Winchester Road, Newtown Common, RG20 9DD
•
•
•
•

The appeal is made under section 20 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990 against a refusal to grant listed building consent.
The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs R Ward against the decision of Basingstoke and
Deane Borough Council
The application Ref 20/00068/LBC dated 08 February 2020, was refused by notice dated
10 March 2020.
The development proposed is single storey extension to the left of Holly Cottage, and a
weather porch to the rear, and a partition wall to form a new downstairs WC.

Appeal B: APP/H1705/W/20/3252979
Holly Cottage, Winchester Road, Newtown Common, RG20 9DD
•
•
•
•

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs R Ward against the decision of Basingstoke and
Deane Borough Council.
The application Ref 20/00127/HSE, dated 17 January 2020, was refused by notice dated
11 March 2020.
The works proposed are replacement of the rear porch and a single storey side
extension.

Decisions
Appeal A
1. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to a single storey side extension to
the side of Holly Cottage. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the
weather porch to the rear, a partition wall to form a new downstairs wc and
chimney and listed building consent is granted for the weather porch to the
rear, a partition wall to form a new downstairs wc and chimney at Holly
Cottage, Winchester Road, Newtown Common, RG20 9DD in accordance with
the terms of the application, Ref 20/00068/LBC, dated 8 February 2020 and
the plans submitted with it, so far as relevant to that part of the development
hereby permitted and subject to the condition that external materials shall
match the existing.
Appeal B
2. The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to a single storey side extension.
The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the replacement of the rear porch
and planning permission is granted for replacement of the rear porch at Holly
Cottage, Winchester Road, Newtown Common, RG20 9DD in accordance with
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/20/3252979

the terms of the application, Ref 20/00127/HSE, dated 17 January 2020 and
the plans submitted with it, so far as relevant to that part of the development
hereby permitted and subject to the condition that external materials shall
match the existing.
Reasons
3. The main issue is the effect on the significance and special architectural and
historic interest of the listed building.
4. The list description identifies Holly Cottage as being grade II listed and a C17
cottage, formed with a 2 bay timber frame. It has been faced up with masonry
and has had later extensions to it. I consider that the significance and historic
interest of the building relates to its age, materials, construction and cottage
appearance.
5. The development plan included the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan with
Policies EM10 and EM11 being relevant. Policy EM10 requires all development
to be of a high quality. Household extensions will be permitted where they,
amongst other things, have due regard to the density, scale, layout,
appearance, architectural detailing, materials and history of the surrounding
area and relationship to heritage assets. Policy EM11 notes that all
development must conserve or enhance the quality of the borough’s heritage
assets in a manner appropriate to their significance. Development must ensure
that extensions and/or alterations respect the historic form, setting, fabric and
any other aspects that contribute to the significance of the host building. There
is also supplementary planning documents in terms of design and sustainability
and heritage.
6. Currently there is a utilitarian flat roofed porch to the rear of the house that
harms the character and appearance of the listed building. It is proposed that
this is removed and replaced with a new porch. The new porch design is a
simple timber frame with pitched roof over, which is an improvement to the
character and appearance of the listed building and does not affect its
significance.
7. It is also proposed to utilise an existing internal flue, providing a small brick
chimney above the roof. The chimney is a minor feature in relation to the rest
of the house, is in keeping with the other chimney and has no effect of the
significance and special architectural and historic interest of the listed building.
8. Internally it is proposed to provide a small wall to form a new toilet area and
this would have no major effect upon the original part of the building and
would not affect its significance and special architectural and historic interest.
9. The main proposal is to extend the building at ground floor level. This would be
proportionately a very large extension, particularly in relation to the floor area
of the original building. The appellant has also provided an alternative roof
proposal for the external arrangement. The alternative is with a flat roof and
lantern, while the application has
a flat roof and lantern, but with pitched roof sections to front and rear.
10. The main problem with the extension is the size of the proposed space in
relation to the rest of the listed building which in my opinion would be
disproportionate to it, both in terms of its plan form and elevations (in either
form). While it is smaller than the existing building, it is still a sizable extension
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

2

Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/20/3252979

that would appear prominent in views of the listed building and would not be
sufficiently subordinate to the listed building.
11. I accept it is not visible from public positions but any harm to a listed building
has to be considered. I also acknowledge that generally the materials proposed
are reasonable. However, the flat roofed variation of the extension is not in
keeping with the design of the listed building, and the small pitched roof
sections suggested as additions in the other variation are also alien features
that would harm the appearance of the listed building and its significance and
special architectural and historic interest. There is also a significant potential
for loss of the original outside wall. Although the opening is reasonably small,
there is evidence that the existing wall has had alterations in the past and
would be potentially unstable if altered as proposed. Overall, the proposal
would not accord with Policies EM10 and EM11.
12. In terms of the National Planning Policy Framework the level of harm would be
identified as ‘less than substantial’ and needs to be balance against any public
benefits. There would be benefit to the owner and his family improving their
living space and perhaps some benefit in maintaining and securing the future of
the listed building. I also note that the owner has taken great care to preserve
the listed building in terms of fire protection and plumbing. However, given the
level of harm it clearly outweighs any of the benefits. I find that the proposal is
unacceptable and should be dismissed. However, as the porch, flue and
internal wall would be acceptable I will issue a split decision and allow these
works.

Graham Dudley
Planning Inspector

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

3