Appeal 3274703

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the single storey front extension and planning permission is refused for the single storey front extension. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the porch extension and planning permission is granted for a porch extension at [site address] [site address] Killamarsh [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 21/00124/FLH, dated 6 February 2021, and the plans submitted with it, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of the decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans PB1/2 B and Site Plan.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

The appeal property ( [site address] ) is located within the Green Belt. This matter is not at issue between the parties and the Council has accepted that the proposal is not inappropriate development within the Green Belt. I agree with this assessment and my decision deals solely with the reasons for refusal given by the Council.

The Council has indicated that it has no objections to the porch extension to the front of the property. Accordingly, I shall direct my assessment to the single storey front extension element of the proposal.

[name] 2021 the Government published its revised Framework. It replaces the previous version published in February 2109. The Framework represents the Government’s up to date planning policies for England and how they should be applied. The circumstances of this appeal are such that it has not been necessary to seek comments from the parties on the revised Framework.

The Council cite policies from the emerging local plan in their reasons for refusal. From the information before me it is not clear when the plan will be adopted. I can only give these policies limited weight in my determination of the appeal.

The main issues in the appeal are: (i) the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] and [name] with particular regard to outlook, overlooking and privacy; and (ii) the effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area.

[site address] is a barn conversion and one of three properties located around a central courtyard. To the west, situated on a higher level, is [address], the original farmhouse. [address] has a single storey extension close to and facing the side elevation of [site address] . The massing of the proposed extension visible above, and close to the boundary wall would create a dominant and solid wall in proximity to this boundary. This would result in an unacceptable overbearing and domineering effect for the occupiers of [address]. I appreciate that there is a stone wall between the two properties and that a number of windows in the extension already face the gable wall of [site address] . However, the close proximity of the extension and its increased height in comparison with the existing stone wall would introduce a sense of enclosure to the kitchen. Whilst there is an alternative window in this room, this is on a different elevation and would not have a significant effect on mitigating the loss of outlook nor the overbearing effect in this instance. Accordingly the proposal would result in a detrimental overbearing impact on the amenities of the occupiers of [address].

To the north of [site address] , and at a lower level, separated by the central courtyard and front garden, is [name], a second barn conversion. The position of [name] is such that there is already a degree of overlooking from the existing windows and doors in [site address] . The proposed extension would be closer to [name], though the Council and the appellant disagree as to the distance. Given the degree to which the existing habitable rooms look towards [name], the angles of vision that would be created and the distances involved,together with the existing boundary treatment between the two properties, the proposal would not be so unacceptable as to justify refusing the appeal on this issue. The proposal would not conform to the recommended separation distances (even on the appellant’s own measurements) within the Council’s ‘Successful Places Supplementary Planning Guidance’. However, for the reasons stated above, the proposal would still comply with the overall aims contained within Policy H5 of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (2005) (Local Plan) which requires that extensions should, amongst other things, avoid significant loss of privacy and amenity for the residents of neighbouring properties.

I therefore conclude on this issue that the proposal would not result in a significant loss of privacy due to overlooking in relation to the living conditions of the occupiers of [name]. However, it would result in unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular regard to outlook. It would therefore be contrary to Policy H5 of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan (2005) (Local Plan), details of which I have given above.

Whilst the three properties in the courtyard have differences in terms of style and form, overall they reflect the traditional character of former farm buildings. They are viewed as part of a group from [site address] and together make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of this rural area. The scale of the full height glazing across much of the front elevation of the proposed extension and the addition of a flat roof with triple roof lights would be dominant. It would give the outward appearance of a more modern dwelling rather than maintain the architecture and materials of the former farm building. The resultant extension would as a consequence be out of keeping with the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the contribution that it makes to the character and appearance of the area.

The existing full height large window on the front elevation is already a departure from the original form of the building. Rather than creating balance the additional glazing would be an overly discordant feature detracting from the simpler form of the former farm building on this elevation. The appellant indicates that the proposal would be constructed with traditional features and materials, however aspects of good design are fundamental to all developments and would not represent a notable benefit.

I appreciate that the Framework indicates that design should not be used as reason for objection to development where the design accords with clear expectations in plan policies. The overall aim of Local Plan Policy H5 is to ensure that extensions positively respect local distinctiveness and a sense of place through design. In this instance the introduction of a large area of glazing across a long front elevation would be at odds with [site address] and the farm buildings which add to the prevailing character of the area of this part of [site address] .

As such I therefore conclude that the proposed single storey front extension would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and the area. It would therefore be in conflict with Policy H5 of the Local Plan which requires extensions to dwellings to be in keeping with the property and street scene in terms of their style, proportion and materials.

Reference has been made to the effect that the rights of neighbouring occupiers at [name] under Article 1 of the [name] and Article 8 of the Human Rights Act would be violated if the appeal were allowed. I do not consider that this argument is well founded because I have found that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [name] with particular regard to privacy. The degree of interference that would be caused would be insufficient to give rise to a violation of rights under Article 1 or Article 8.

As the porch extension is both physically and functionally severable, I consider that a split decision would be appropriate in this instance. [name] conclude that the appeal should succeed in relation to the porch extension.

I have attached the standard time condition and a plans condition to provide certainty. I have also attached a condition regarding materials to be used in the porch extension to ensure a satisfactory appearance.

The single storey front extension would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the area and would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of [address]. There are no other considerations which would outweigh these findings or the conflict with the Development Plan. Accordingly in relation to the single storey front extension, I dismiss the appeal. The element of the proposal which relates to the front porch extension is allowed in accordance with my formal decision given above.