Appeal 3280693

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council altered the description of development from “first floor extension to form a new master bedroom suite over existing main living area of dwelling” to “Proposed first floor extension to existing dwelling”. This is also the description used by the appellant on the appeal form. I consider this to be a more accurate description of the appeal proposals and I have therefore considered the appeal on this basis.

I consider that the main issue is the impact of the development on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the area generally.

The appeal site is a converted traditional agricultural building forming part of a development which includes further converted buildings as well as new dwellings at a former farmstead site. The dwellings at [address] are primarily of brick construction, with the traditional barns having a mixture of slate and tile roofs. There are detached dwellings which appear to be primarily single storey with the original farmhouse being two storey in height. I was able to see at my site visit that there are various different additions, including domestic features such as balconies, garage buildings, rooflights and other openings.

The appeal dwelling includes a two storey element with a single storey outrigger, the subject of this appeal which is to be extended. The appeal proposals would introduce a first floor above this single storey element, consisting of horizontal timber cladding and dark grey single lap roof. Rooflights would be inserted to the front elevation, with further rooflights and dormer style windows to the rear elevation.

Whilst the extension would match the pitch of the existing single storey element and would remain at a lower height than the two storey element of the existing dwelling, it would introduce an additional and unduly dominant and incongruous feature to the dwelling and its setting in the former farmstead. [name] accept that the extension would be clad in timber to denote a more recent addition, I do not consider that this would overcome the resultant bulk of the proposed extension and its impact to the character and appearance of the site overall.

The appeal site contributes to the original character of the farmstead with two storey element with single storey outriggers and this is apparent when seen from the access drive or [address]. [name] accept that the appeal site is set back from [address] some distance, there are still views across the fields towards [address] and the overall effect would still remain that of a bulky and incongruous addition to the wider site, thus diminishing the original form of the former fam buildings and thus their character as seen from [address].

I consider that the addition due to its height, bulk and materials would be at odds with the nearby single storey dwelling and would cause harm to the character and appearance of the site and locality. The parties agree that there are limited cultural and aesthetic values to the buildings and former farmstead, with little resultant hierarchy between dwellings. I was able to see the numerous alterations at the site and farmstead, nonetheless these are not sufficient reasons to further erode the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling and its setting as a result of the development.

Although there have been additions to the site and the wider development, and the appeal site forms a small part of the larger grouping of buildings at [address], this does not overcome the harm identified as a result of the proposed development. In any event, I have considered the appeal scheme on its own merits. The existence of previous extensions and alterations to the appeal site or nearby dwellings does not justify the harm I have identified.

For the collective reasons outlined above, significant harm would be caused to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and to the area. Therefore, the proposal would not accord with the design aims of Policies CS2 and CS11 of the Charnwood Local Plan (November 2015) and [name]/1 and H/17 of the Borough of Charnwood Local Plan (January 2004), all of which seek (amongst other things) a high quality of design and that developments have regard to scale, massing and respect the local environment.

For the reasons given above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.