# Pear Tree Barn, Old Gloucester Road, Alveston (listed building consent, Appeal B)

- **Decision:** dismissed, 24 September 2026
- **Decided by:** Planning Inspector: B Phillips
- **Authority:** South Gloucestershire (South West)
- **Appeal reference:** 6010098
- **Application reference:** P26/00443/LB
- **Procedure:** householder
- **Development:** Listed building consent for a single-storey oak-framed rear extension to a curtilage-listed converted barn
- **Site context:** green-belt, listed-building-setting
- **Green Belt:** yes
- **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF
- **Determinative policies:** HE6(4), HE4(2)
- **Development plan policies:** South Gloucestershire Core Strategy 2013 CS1, CS9, Policies Sites and Places Plan 2017 PSP1, PSP17, PSP38
- **Main issues:** special interest of curtilage listed building and setting of Grade II farmhouse
- **Tags:** listed-building-consent, he6-harm-graded, he6-public-benefits-insufficient, heritage-harm-decisive, barn-conversion, parties-consulted-on-2026-framework, tier-2

## Summary
Listed building consent for a glazed oak-framed extension to Pear Tree Barn, a curtilage-listed converted barn next to Grade II Angers Farmhouse at Alveston, was refused on appeal. The extension would overwhelm the barn's simple agricultural form and weaken the farm group's contribution to the farmhouse. The low harm to both assets was not outweighed by modest private and economic benefits. The linked householder appeal (6010093) was dismissed in the same letter.

## Issues and findings
- **Transition.** "The Council and the appellant have had opportunity to comment on this" (DL ¶5).
- **Harm to the barn.** The extension "would overwhelm the otherwise simple form and undermine the agricultural character of the building" (DL ¶13). The works "would fail to preserve the special architectural and historic interest of the curtilage listed building" (DL ¶14).
- **Harm to the farmhouse.** The works "would therefore affect the authenticity of how Angers Farmhouse is experienced" (DL ¶15).
- **Degree of harm.** "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" (DL ¶16).
- **Public benefits: insufficient.** "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" (DL ¶18). "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" (DL ¶21).
- **HE4(2).** No "clear and convincing justification" (DL ¶22).

## Planning balance
HE6(4), with HE6(1) substantial weight to conservation stated (DL ¶20). No S4/S5 balance for the consent appeal.

## What made the difference
The barn's significance lies in its plain agricultural form, and the extension's scale and glazing would obscure it. Nothing showed that the extension was needed to keep the building in use. A smaller, more solid addition in keeping with the barn's restrained openings might have succeeded.

## Transferable points
- For a converted barn, harm comes from obscuring the legibility of the former agricultural function, even where the extension is subservient and stepped away (DL ¶12–13).
- Harm to a curtilage-listed building can also harm the principal listed building by eroding the farm group (DL ¶15).
- Other consented works that have already diluted a group's character do not justify further harm (DL ¶19).

## Policy findings
- **HE6(1): harm (substantial weight).** HE6(1) stated - "substantial weight should be given to the asset's conservation"; highly glazed extension overwhelms the barn's simple L-shaped agricultural form (DL 12-14, 20)
- **HE6(3): harm (considerable weight).** low harm, individually and cumulatively, to the curtilage-listed barn and to the Grade II Angers Farmhouse (via erosion of the farm group), "of considerable importance and weight" (DL 14-16)
- **HE6(4): fail.** economic and housing-stock benefits; no evidence that the building's use or upkeep depends on the extension; other consented works elsewhere no justification (DL 17-19, 21)
- **HE4(2): fail.** no clear and convincing justification (DL 22)

## Key facts
- Joint letter with Appeal A (planning, householder, ref 6010093), also dismissed; Council accepted the extension is not inappropriate in the Green Belt under GB7(1)(b) (DL 1, 6)
- Barn curtilage listed under s1(5) with Grade II Angers Farmhouse (list entry 1321101), 17th century with 18th-century stables (DL 9)
- Extension stepped away from the barn, subservient in height, matching tiled roof, but expansive glazing (DL 12-13)

## Sources
- https://appeal-planning-decision.service.gov.uk/comment-planning-appeal/appeals/6010098

---

Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/PINS-6010098.html

A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision letter. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.