Appeal 3276923

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for ‘single storey extension to the existing kitchen. The extension will be in Cheshire brick and slate tile, with timber windows, in keeping with the existing building and the existing glazing’ at [site address] , [site address] , [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20/4836M, dated 31 October 2020, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Dwg: 104 (existing elevations); Dwg: BDD_090_01 ([name]); Dwg: BDD_090_01 ([name] and Floor Plan) and Dwg: 102A (Location 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.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area.

[site address] forms one half of a pair of houses within a converted agricultural building. The long and unbroken length of the building’s 2-storey element results in a simple layout to the structure which contributes positively to its architectural interest as a former agricultural barn.

An existing lean-to extension is positioned on the neighbouring dwelling and is prominent from the public highway and shared vehicular entrance. Despite the existing extension’s prominence, the strong 3-dimensional shape of the 2- storey barn remains striking.

The proposal would incorporate matching materials and timber windows. The addition of a further small lean-to extension along this elevation would not, in my view, appear incongruous, even though it would be clearly visible, given there is a similar extension at the adjoining dwelling. It would remain subservient to the host building, in scale, due to its small size and single storey lean-to nature. This would ensure that even with the existing extension, the long length of the building’s 2-storey element would remain distinct. Overall, I am therefore satisfied that the agricultural character of the former barn would be maintained.

In reaching this conclusion I have considered the other decisions highlighted by the Council. However, each case has its own unique circumstances in terms of the design of the host building and proposed development.

In dismissing the appeal at The Stables on [address], the Inspector noted that the proposed extension would have been the first of its kind within the courtyard which would have resulted in a loss of coherence between the other buildings. Moreover, the proposed extension at the Stables along [address] was for a pitched roof extension to an ‘L shaped’ converted barn.

These aspects contrast with the proposal before me, where there is an existing lean-to extension at the adjoining property. I have, in any case, reached my own conclusions on the proposal based on the evidence and plans before me.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host building and surrounding area. I therefore find no conflict with the requirements of Policies SE1 and SD2 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2010 - 2030 (2017) or Policy DC2 of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan (2004). These require, amongst other things, that developments contribute positively to an area’s character and identity. In this regard, I also find no conflict with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework which, at paragraph 130, broadly seeks high quality design.

The proposed extension would be readily apparent in the outlook from the property and garden of the attached neighbouring dwelling. However, the design of the roof, sloping down from the wall of the existing dwelling and its modest projection into the garden, combined with its single storey scale, would assist in moderating the impact of the visible increase in building mass. Overall, the effect on outlook and light would not be significantly harmful. There are no windows proposed on the elevation facing toward the neighbouring boundary and the proposal would create a small room functioning as part of the existing house. As such, I do not consider that there would be any significant noise and disturbance.

The appeal site is located within the Green Belt. However, the main parties agree that the proposal would not be inappropriate development and I have no reason to disagree.

In addition to the standard implementation condition, a condition is necessary to ensure the development is carried out in accordance with the plans submitted with the application. A condition to ensure that the materials match those used on the original building is necessary in the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.