Appeal 3306481

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal site is located within the Green Belt. The Council has not advanced any reasons for refusal associated with harm to the Green Belt, and neither party has provided any substantive evidence to suggest that harm to the Green Belt or the purposes of including land within it, would arise. I have therefore, dealt with the appeal on the basis of the evidence before me.

The reason for refusal within the Council’s decision notice refers to a gabled glazed addition. It is clear from the submitted plans that the proposed extension does not include a gabled roof. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the proposal shown on the plans.

The proposal includes alterations to windows within the existing dwelling to which the Council has not raised concerns. Based on all that I have seen and read, I see no reason to disagree with this point of view. With regard to the evidence before me, the main issue is therefore, the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the area, including the host dwelling.

The appeal site is located in a semi-rural area where built form is sporadically distributed around the main road of [site address] , from which views of surrounding agricultural fields and hills are common. The area therefore has a pleasant, green and open character.

The appeal site comprises a detached former stone barn, now converted to a dwelling, set into the hillside below [site address] . Despite it having been altered as part of the conversion works, the host property retains the richly textured stone elevations, rectangular plan form and high wall to window ratio, alongside original features including the former threshing door openings. Even though the appeal building is not listed, nor sited within a Conservation Area, it has nevertheless retained much of its pleasing agricultural appearance, reflective of its original use. Given its position in relation to nearby fields, the host dwelling contributes positively to the character of the area, being illustrative of mid 19th century agricultural architecture and practices.

The proposal would result in an extension to a previous single-storey addition that wraps around the side of the appeal building to the rear. Although substantially increasing the floor area and mass of the host building when combined with the previous addition, the single-storey scale of the proposed extension itself, would be subservient in size to the host dwelling.

Contemporary in appearance, the proposal would largely appear as a glass cube, with 2 fully glazed elevations and a glazed flat roof that would sit slightly above the eaves of the existing lean-to roof, forming an awkward juncture. The high window to wall ratio would be directly at odds with the solid, robust appearance of the former barn and its smaller window openings. The predominant use of glass, rather than appearing transparent, would result in large, flat, plain and reflective elevations and roof, that would contrast sharply with the richly textured, robust stonework and pitched roofs of the host building. The overtly contemporary appearance would in this instance, represent a discordant addition that would be inconsistent and jar with, the traditional character and appearance of the host building. This would be more apparent at night with lights within the extension drawing attention to its differing form.

I recognise that views of the rear elevation are to some extent limited, given the topography of the field to the rear and the presence of stone boundary walls. Nonetheless, the roof and the upper portion of the northern elevation would be partially visible in views down from [site address] . Furthermore, Policy BE1 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan 2006 (RCUDP) does not require new development to be publicly visible to be harmful to the character and appearance of the dwelling or wider area. Regardless of visibility, the proposal would still be an unsympathetic form of extension, resulting in a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the original building.

I conclude that the proposed extension would have a harmful effect upon the character and appearance of the area, including the host dwelling. As a result, it would fail to comply with Policy BE1 of the RCUDP which requires new development to respect or enhance the appearance of existing buildings in terms of form, massing and materials, amongst other things. It would also fail to comply with paragraph 130 of the National Planning Policy Framework which requires high quality development that responds to and reflects the identity of the surroundings.

The appellant considers that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and that the creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places, is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. Amendments were made to the scheme following the refusal of a previous application (reference 21/00220/HSE). Be that as it may, it does not overcome the harm I have found in respect of this proposal to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area.

A third party has raised concerns relating to the right of access to the appeal site. [name] am dismissing the appeal on the main issue, I have not considered this matter further.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, and all other considerations, the appeal is dismissed.