The Elms, High Street, Ilchester, Yeovil, Somerset, BA22 8NQ

The Elms, High Street, Ilchester, Yeovil, Somerset, BA22 8NQ — Somerset Council — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 January 2026 by F Webber BSc (Hons), MSc, MRTPI, ACSM an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 March 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/E3335/W/25/3375895 The Elms, High Street, Ilchester, Yeovil, Somerset BA22 8NQ • 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 M Bull against the decision of Somerset Council. • The application Ref is 25/00582/FUL. • The development proposed is for the formation of new access to the highway and a parking/turning area. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. Whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Ilchester Conservation Area. Reasons 3. Whilst the address of the appeal site is the High Street, the proposed works relate to creating a new vehicular access from Priory Road at the rear of the property. The proposed development would result in the removal of a section of stone wall and the creation of a vehicular access. The proposed driveway would be a 1:12 slope formed of setts to a gravelled area forming the parking / turning area.

The Elms, High Street, Ilchester, Yeovil, Somerset, BA22 8NQ — Somerset Council — Appeal Decision Wing walls would flank the slope to allow for a pair of wooden gates, set back from the highway. 4. My attention has been drawn to another appeal Ref: APP/R3325/D/21/3289193. There are many similarities insofar as the site relates to a property on the High Street, with a back garden wall onto Priory Road, and sought to carry out the same type of development. However, that site did lie within a scheduled monument and does not have an existing vehicular access onto the High Street. The site at The Elms, whilst not within it, does lie adjacent to the scheduled monument. Consequently, I consider that the earlier appeal is a material consideration. 5. The appeal site, including the stone boundary wall, is within the Ilchester Conservation Area (CA). Section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention should be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. 6. The Conservation Area Appraisal (CAA) makes clear that where they survive, the rear and side boundary walls to houses to both sides of the High Street, but https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

The Elms, High Street, Ilchester, Yeovil, Somerset, BA22 8NQ — Somerset Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/25/3375895 particularly at the end of gardens, which back onto Priory Road, are of significant local importance and that the boundary walls of Ilchester Conservation Area are exceptional in terms of their extent and their quality. 7. The CAA goes on to say that the boundary walls are of Blue Lias Stone laid to squared courses and that “wherever these walls are found they form a very important part of the positive character and appearance of the conservation area and are often a true reflection of the vernacular character of the town.” I give significant weight to the findings of the CAA. Furthermore, the Council considers that the wall forms part of a non-designated heritage asset and given the foregoing I would agree with that assessment. 8. It is therefore necessary to consider whether the proposal would conserve or enhance the CA and / or would compound the harm to the CA that has already occurred in other parts of Priory Road. It was notable, on the day of my visit, that on the approach to the site along Priory Road that significant stretches of the boundary walls, of the gardens, at the back of High Street were either completely removed or in a severe state of dilapidation.

The Elms, High Street, Ilchester, Yeovil, Somerset, BA22 8NQ — Somerset Council — Appeal Decision Some of the properties had also removed the back wall to allow for off-road parking. 9. The wall to the rear of The Elms is largely still intact, although a small section has collapsed. This stretch of wall appears to be one of few remaining sections that is representative of the original design and construction of the boundary walls. I recognise that there would be limited benefit in that the remaining wall would be repaired and stabilised and the new wing walls would be constructed from salvaged stone from the collapse. However, the removal of 3.3 metres of wall cannot be construed to be conserving or enhancing the CA and would compound the harm to the CA that has already occurred in other parts of Priory Road. The additional harm would be less than substantial. 10. I have had regard to the personal circumstances of the appellant and their need for vehicular access onto the highway. I acknowledge that there would be benefits for the current occupiers of the dwelling and that there would be negative impacts on them in dismissing the appeal.

The Elms, High Street, Ilchester, Yeovil, Somerset, BA22 8NQ — Somerset Council — Appeal Decision However, The Elms already benefits from adequate off-road parking, and it is noted that there are parking restrictions already in place, across the existing access, that are legally enforceable. There is no substantive evidence to show that the existing High Street access has led to highway safety problems. I note the appellant’s concerns regarding emergency access to the property. However, given that the property adjoins the High Street, there is nothing to suggest that pedestrian access could not be obtained without the need for vehicles to use the existing access. Therefore, I consider that the claimed benefits of the proposed access would be largely private in nature. Applying the test at Framework paragraph 215, therefore, I consider that harm to the CA from the proposal would not be outweighed by its public benefits. Nor is the proposal required to secure the optimum use of the property as a dwelling. 11.

The Elms, High Street, Ilchester, Yeovil, Somerset, BA22 8NQ — Somerset Council — Appeal Decision In light of the foregoing the proposed development would conflict with Policy EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) (SSLP) which seeks to ensure, amongst other things, that all new development proposals relating to the historic environment will safeguard and where appropriate enhance the significance, character, setting and local distinctiveness of heritage assets. The Council has in the reasons for refusal cited Policy EQ4 of the SSLP, given that this policy relates to Biodiversity Net Gain, I do not think it is of relevance in this case and likely to https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

The Elms, High Street, Ilchester, Yeovil, Somerset, BA22 8NQ — Somerset Council — Appeal Decision In light of the foregoing the proposed development would conflict with Policy EQ3 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2006-2028) (SSLP) which seeks to ensure, amongst other things, that all new development proposals relating to the historic environment will safeguard and where appropriate enhance the significance, character, setting and local distinctiveness of heritage assets. The Council has in the reasons for refusal cited Policy EQ4 of the SSLP, given that this policy relates to Biodiversity Net Gain, I do not think it is of relevance in this case and likely to https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

The Elms, High Street, Ilchester, Yeovil, Somerset, BA22 8NQ — Somerset Council — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/25/3375895 have been a typographical error. Consequently, I consider Policy EQ2 of the SSLP is pertinent in this appeal and that there would also be conflict with this policy which requires that development preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the district. Other Matters 12. I have taken account of the concerns raised by those living on Priory Road, including in relation to parking / traffic, and the potential for further development within the site. However, based on the information before me none of these matters would be grounds to dismiss the appeal Conclusion 13. For the above reasons, and having taken into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

The Elms, High Street, Ilchester, Yeovil, Somerset, BA22 8NQ — Somerset Council — F Webber INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3