Appeal 3304701

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for extension to existing living room at [site address] , [site address] , CHIPPENHAM, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2022/01090, dated 11 February 2022, 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: 891/CAM/2021/2 [name] and 891/CAM/2021/1.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match in material, colour and texture those detailed on the application form and approved plans.

The Council disputes whether the boundaries shown on the location plan are an accurate reflection of the extent of the residential curtilage. Nonetheless, for the purposes of the determination of this Section 78 appeal, this boundary does include the land necessary to carry out the proposed development, accepting that this may not be the full extent of the residential curtilage.

An amended ‘[name] plan (891/CAM/2021/2 [name]) was submitted with the appeal. This includes the previously omitted first floor extension which was permitted as part of an earlier approval. Nonetheless there remain some discrepancies between this amended plan and what I observed on site. Specifically, a number of rooflights were visible on the southern and eastern elevations which do not appear in either the existing or proposed plans. I consider this to be a minor point which does not impact on the determination of the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the building and surrounding area.

The appeal building, ‘ [site address] ’, is part of a loose enclave of buildings located adjacent to the B4069. It is accessed via a long driveway and is visually and physically separated from nearby buildings by hedging. There is limited visibility of [site address] in the wider area, with glimpsed views possible from the B4069.

[site address] was converted from an existing part single/part two storey barn structure some 20 years ago. At that time it was an elongated slender structure, with the main range extending notably to the east. Since then, [site address] has been altered and extended a number of times, most notably with a first-floor addition over part of the main range, and with a single storey projection from the eastern end of the range. The latter addition incorporates a south facing gabled projection. Two significantly sized single storey buildings are also set adjacent to the gravelled courtyard framing [site address] .

The use of traditional materials and complementary built elements such as steeply pitched roofs and mostly modest window openings mean that, overall, [site address] does appear as a rural vernacular structure. There is also a strong sense of it having evolved over time to its present form as a slightly haphazard assemblage. When viewed together in its immediate courtyard setting with the other structures this grouping does not appear out of place in its wider rural context.

That said, the origins of [site address] as a barn are no longer immediately obvious, with the range of materials and built elements, particularly the extent of additional glazing, serving to mask much of its original simplicity. Some sense of the original structure can still be gleaned from the two-storey element when seen from the west, as well as the relatively modest appearance of the single storey range when viewed from the north. However, when viewed from the south, the simple appearance of the range has been greatly eroded.

The proposed single storey extension would adjoin the existing extension south of the range, effectively squaring off the footprint of the building at this point. It would replicate the existing southern gable projection, with the twin gable elements seen alongside each other when viewed from the south. The appearance of this addition, particularly the extent of additional glazing, would represent a further departure from the modest origins of [site address] in both plan form and appearance.

Nonetheless, as a further single storey addition, this element would not appear out of place when viewed and considered alongside the evolved structure. Specifically, the form and materials of the extension would complement and to a degree unify the appearance of the eastern part of the building, when seen from the south. There would be no significant change to the two-storey element, nor the northern elevation, such that those elements of the building displaying a simple vernacular treatment would be retained. For these reasons the addition would integrate reasonably well with its immediate setting, and the site overall would not appear over-developed. Also, given the limited visibility of [site address] in its rural setting, and the single storey nature of the addition, there would be no harm to the wider landscape.

For these reasons the proposed development would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the building or the surrounding area. It would not conflict with the requirements of the Wiltshire Core Strategy Policy 51 in seeking to protect, conserve and where possible enhance landscape character, nor Policy 57 which requires that all new developments have a high standard of design which responds positively to existing features in terms of layout, built form, height, mass, scale, building line, elevational design, materials, and rooflines. There would be no conflict with the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan Policy D1 which requires that proposals should result in high quality development, respecting the character and historic design features of the village.

[name], a Grade II Listed Building is located directly to the northwest of [site address] . I am therefore required to have special regard to the desirability of preserving this building or its setting. This late 17th/early 18th Century building is a substantial two-storey stone structure with a cross wing, a steeply pitched roof and mullion windows. Overall, this building displays the elegant simplicity of a distinctive rural period building.

Whilst the Farmhouse and [site address] are located in reasonably close proximity, any past functional linkages, if they existed, are no longer apparent. The first floor of [site address] can be seen alongside the Farmhouse in views from the Farmhouse driveway. In this sense [site address] is within the wider setting of the Farmhouse, though in general terms the extent of intervening landscaping limits the significance of this wider setting. The single storey nature of the current proposal, and its position on the southern elevation of [site address] , mean that it would not appear as part of the setting of the Farmhouse. Therefore, my view is that it would not cause harm to the significance of this designated heritage asset.

The approved plans have been specified in the interests of certainty. The specification of the materials to be used is required in the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the building and local area.

The proposal would accord with the development plan and there are no material considerations to indicate that a contrary view should be taken. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should succeed.