Case 3294103

Moat Farm, Moor End, Tibberton, WR9 7NS

Wychavon District Council — appeal dismissed

Outcome
Dismissed
Decision date
25 April 2023
Authority
Wychavon District Council
Inspector
Jones M
Procedure
Written Representations
Casework type
Planning Appeal
Type detail
Planning Appeals - Full
Development type
Householder developments
Appellant
Mr & Mrs Tom and Ellie King
LPA reference
21/01857/HP
ONS LPA code
E07000238
Jurisdiction
Transferred
Link status
Lead
Start date
3 January 2023

Summary AI

The appeals were dismissed due to the proposed development's impact on the special architectural and historic interest of the Grade II listed building, Moat Farmhouse. The two-storey extension would cause less than substantial harm, but the benefits of the scheme could be delivered without it, and the development plan policies require conservation of the historic environment.

Generated from the decision letter — check against the original before relying on it.

PDF text

Page 1 · Chunk 0 by Matthew Jones BA(Hons) MA MRTPI

Moat Farm, Moor End, Tibberton, WR9 7NS — Wychavon District Council — by Matthew Jones BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 April 2023

Page 1 · Chunk 1 Moat Farm, Moor End, Tibberton WR9 7NS

Moat Farm, Moor End, Tibberton, WR9 7NS — Wychavon District Council — Moat Farm, Moor End, Tibberton WR9 7NS • 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 Tom and Ellie King against the decision of Wychavon District Council. • The application Ref 21/01857/HP, dated 16 July 2021, was refused by notice dated 2 February 2022. • The development proposed is demolition of single storey lean-to; two storey side extension; conversion of outbuilding to ancillary residential use including glazed link to extension; demolition of front porch and construction of new front porch; replacement windows; internal alterations including a new staircase and partition walls.

Page 1 · Chunk 2 Moat Farm, Moor End, Tibberton WR9 7NS

Moat Farm, Moor End, Tibberton, WR9 7NS — Wychavon District Council — Moat Farm, Moor End, Tibberton WR9 7NS • 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 Tim and Ellie King against the decision of Wychavon District Council. • The application Ref 21/01858/LB, dated 16 July 2021, was refused by notice dated 2 February 2022. • The works proposed are demolition of single storey lean-to; two storey side extension; conversion of outbuilding to ancillary residential use including glazed link to extension; demolition of front porch and construction of new front porch; replacement windows; internal alterations including a new staircase and partition walls.

Page 1 · Chunk 3 lean-to. It would be a sizable intervention which would largely fill the right

Moat Farm, Moor End, Tibberton, WR9 7NS — Wychavon District Council — lean-to. It would be a sizable intervention which would largely fill the right https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 1 · Chunk 4 lean-to. It would be a sizable intervention which would largely fill the right

Moat Farm, Moor End, Tibberton, WR9 7NS — Wychavon District Council — lean-to. It would be a sizable intervention which would largely fill the right https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decisions APP/H1840/W/22/3294103, APP/H1840/Y/22/3294104 angle of the existing building and therefore diminish legibility of its original plan. Moreover, in almost directly abutting the return of the west range of the house, a preserved area of 17th Century frame would be obscured. Despite its slightly lower ridge, therefore, the extension would compete with the historic massing and dimensions of the listed building, particularly as viewed from its former historic foldyard directly to the south and from the land to the east. 5. The point is made that these elevations of Moat Farmhouse are well concealed from the public. Nonetheless, listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest irrespective of the extent to which public views of the building can be gained. Consequently, our understanding of the building’s original form would be reduced, and its significance would be harmed. 6. There are benefits the scheme would deliver1, such as the reuse of the shed, internally the greater exposure of historic fabric and plan form, and externally the re-expression of the southeast corner of the original house.

Page 2 · Chunk 5 lean-to. It would be a sizable intervention which would largely fill the right

Moat Farm, Moor End, Tibberton, WR9 7NS — Wychavon District Council — lean-to. It would be a sizable intervention which would largely fill the right However, the existing lean-to is obviously subservient to the original building, and opening up the southeast corner would be a limited benefit compared to the harm the far larger extension would cause. A smaller extension may produce internal spaces which are far less practical, but this does not serve to justify the harm that would arise when the proposal is considered on its own individual merits. In my view, the totality of the works/development proposed would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of the listed building overall. 7. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the Planning Practice Guidance explain that great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets and require decision makers to weigh any less than substantial harm to a designated heritage asset against the public benefits of the scheme, including securing its optimum viable use.

Page 2 · Chunk 6 lean-to. It would be a sizable intervention which would largely fill the right

Moat Farm, Moor End, Tibberton, WR9 7NS — Wychavon District Council — lean-to. It would be a sizable intervention which would largely fill the right That exercise must take place in the context of s.16(2) and s.66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which set a strong presumption against a grant of planning permission or listed building consent for development or works that would harm the special interest of a listed building. 8. The public benefits of the proposal are in the individual heritage gains that would be made at the site. However, it seems to me that most of these benefits could be delivered independent of the harmful two storey extension, and these benefits must carry limited weight as part of a scheme that would cause less than substantial harm to Moat Farmhouse overall. They thus fall decisively short of justifying the harm that would be caused; harm that must be given considerable importance and weight in the balancing exercise. 9. That conclusion also brings the proposal into conflict with the relevant Policies SWDP6 and SWDP24 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (adopted 2016) insofar as they seek for schemes to conserve the historic environment. 10. Consequently, in relation to Appeal A, the proposal would conflict with the development plan read a whole.

Page 2 · Chunk 7 lean-to. It would be a sizable intervention which would largely fill the right

Moat Farm, Moor End, Tibberton, WR9 7NS — Wychavon District Council — lean-to. It would be a sizable intervention which would largely fill the right There are no other considerations which direct me to make my decision other than in accordance with the development plan. For these given reasons, and taking all other matters raised into account, I conclude that the appeals should be dismissed.

Page 2 · Chunk 8 Matthew Jones

Moat Farm, Moor End, Tibberton, WR9 7NS — Wychavon District Council — Matthew Jones INSPECTOR 1 As identified in the appellants’ Heritage Statement (July 2021) https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Extracted from the decision letter PDF and shown in full, chunk by chunk.

Main issues and findings

Heritage impact
Against appellant
¶3

The significance of the listed building primarily derives from its 17th Century construction and plan, which would be diminished by the proposed extension.

Heritage impact
Against appellant
¶5

Listed buildings are safeguarded for their inherent architectural and historic interest, regardless of public views, and the proposed extension would harm the building's original form.

Heritage impact
Against appellant
¶6

The proposed extension would cause more harm than the benefits it would deliver, including the reuse of the shed and greater exposure of historic fabric.

Other
Against appellant
¶7

The development plan policies require conservation of the historic environment, and the proposed development would conflict with these policies.

Other
Against appellant
¶9

The proposed development would also conflict with the relevant policies SWDP6 and SWDP24 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan.

Policies relied on

Reference Weight
NPPF 208
Determinative
SWDP6
Substantial
SWDP24
Substantial

Site constraints from the Casework Database

Conservation area
Green belt
Listed building setting
AONB
SSSI
Flooding an issue

Source

Decision letter, 2 pages, issued by the Planning Inspectorate on 25 April 2023 under the Open Government Licence.