Appeal 3275970

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above is based on that used in the decision notice. I note that this is also the description used by the appellant’s agent in the appeal form.

The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the appearance of the surrounding area.

[site address] , the appeal property, is situate within open countryside. Planning permission has already been granted for a detached cart shed garage with annexe accommodation above.1 The principle of a new car port/garage with annex accommodation of this size and in this location has therefore already been accepted. The present proposal would incorporate dormer windows, French doors and a balcony on the rear elevation from that previously approved. The introduction of such design features would be discordant features in a curtilage building and would not reflect the traditional rural style of such buildings.

The appellant’s agent has drawn my attention to the [name] Planning Document ([name]) which indicates that 1 PF/20/2017 dormers can enliven roof slopes and are a feature of residential dwellings within [name]. Both the [name] and Policy EN4 Design of the [name] also look to encourage high quality modern architecture and indicate that richness and variety make a place special. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) also indicates that design should not be used as a reason for objection to development where the design accords with clear expectations in plan policies. Nonetheless Policy EN4 requires design to have regard to the local context and for development proposals to be suitably designed for the context in which they are set. In this instance, the incorporation of dormer windows, French doors and a balcony in the rear elevation and the introduction of substantial glazing would have the effect of introducing a domestic appearance to a curtilage building. This would be at odds with the functional low key appearance of a traditional curtilage building and would as a result increase its visual dominance.

I appreciate that the proposal would be constructed in traditional materials and is of a traditional cart shed design, however aspects of good design are fundamental to all development, as stated in the Framework, and would not represent a notable benefit. The Design Guide indicated that that it should be left to local context to determine what form a building takes. As such I do not find any inconsistency in the approach taken by the Council to the current proposal and that previously approved.

My attention has been drawn to other development proposals that have been permitted by the Council. Whilst some elements of the proposal are evident elsewhere, they are of different scales and reflect the type of development permitted. Accordingly, they are not directly comparable with the appeal proposal. In addition, two of the developments referred to are in a neighbouring district and were therefore considered in a different policy context to the current appeal. I cannot be certain of the circumstances in which any of these developments were approved and as such give them limited weight. Besides, each case must be determined on its own merits and the individual circumstances involved.

For the reasons given, I conclude that the proposal would harm the appearance of the area. As such it would be contrary to Policies EN2 and EN4 of the [name] which together require development proposals to be of a design to protect and enhance the special qualities of the area and to be suitable for the context within which they are set.

I acknowledge that the proposal would be of benefit to the appellant in providing enhanced facilities to enjoy the rural location. I note too that the Council does not raise any concerns with regards to the amenities of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and there would be no direct overlooking of any properties from the windows or balcony of the proposed development. In addition, views of the rear elevation from public vantage points would be limited. However, the absence of harm in these respects does not outweigh the findings I have made in respect of the effect of the proposed development on the appearance of the area.

I acknowledge too that no objections to the proposal have been received. However, this in itself does not indicate a lack of harm arising from the proposal.

For the reasons given, and having regard to all matters raised, I dismiss the appeal.