Appeal 3287102

The appeal is dismissed.

I consider that the main issue is the effect of the extension on the character and appearance of the existing building.

The appeal site includes just over half of a former barn that has been converted into two dwellings. The building is a part brick, part stone two storey linear building. The conversion does not seem to have included any extensions and the proposal would represent the only projection from the linear design of the building.

Whilst the conversion of the building from an agricultural one would have changed its character, the conversion has retained the traditional form and characteristics of a barn. The appellant suggests that as it has been a dwelling for some years, there is no need to reflect the buildings traditional features as a barn but rather utilise features such as bi-folding doors and glazing more appropriate to its current domestic rather than its previous agricultural use. However, I disagree with this assessment. The former use of the building is an integral part of its character and whilst the conversion may have taken place some years previously, it remains appropriate to design any further alterations or extensions that respect that character.

The proposal includes a long catslide roof which is a feature often found on agricultural buildings but due to the size of the extension and the linear style of this building, it would appear out of character in this instance. I accept that glazing and modern features can be acceptable on some older traditional buildings, but as proposed, I do not consider that to be the case here.

Local Plan Policy CDMP31 seeks to ensure that all development is of a high standard of design that responds positively to the character and form of its surroundings. The National Planning Policy Framework2 also supports good design. Supplementary Planning Document, [name] Home3 sets out further design principles including ensuring an extension reflects and complements the main design features and architecture of the original property. Furthermore, amongst other things, the SPD advises that extensions should not dominate the original dwelling and should complement the general character of the surrounding area.

Whilst the extension would be single storey, its roof design, depth of rear projection and width would appear as a substantial and dominant addition to the rear elevation of this building. The overall scale, massing and design of the extension would fail to complement the traditional design of this former barn. As such it would conflict with Local Plan Policy CDMP3, the SPD and the Framework.

I appreciate that the extension would be to the rear of the property and so not be easily visible outside the site but this is a characteristic of many converted agricultural buildings and does not justify allowing an extension that fails to respect the original form and character of the building. I have considered all other matters raised but none alter my conclusion.

I conclude that the extension would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the existing building. It would conflict with the policies and guidance referred to above and therefore the appeal fails.