Appeal 3326827

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey extension at rear of dwelling at [site address] , Minsterley, Shropshire, [postcode] , Easting: 333099, Northing: 300887, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/02209/FUL, dated 22 May 2023, 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, numbered: MNE2023-002 and MNE2023-006.

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 or those specified on the approved plans.

The address on the application form includes reference to “[name] Junction”. This is a description of the location, rather than part of the address. For this reason, I have omitted this from the banner heading. I also note that the decision notice and appeal form do not use this part of the address line either.

I observed at the time of the site visit that works had commenced and the proposed development was partially constructed. However, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans and details.

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

[address] is a modest detached, two storey cottage, located in the open countryside. The cottage occupies a spacious plot, set on a significantly lower ground level than the road above, which is lined by hedgerows, and results in views of the property from the road being limited.

The site falls within the Shropshire Hills National Landscape (formerly Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty). The Council has identified no harm to the National Landscape, and I am satisfied that due to the relatively modest scale, the proposal would conserve its landscape and scenic beauty.

Policies CS5 and CS6 of the Shropshire Local Development Framework: [name] (CS) and Policy MD2 of the Shropshire Council Site Allocations and Management of Development Plan (SAMDev), together and amongst other things, seek development that is of a high-quality design, that has an appropriate scale and respects and enhances local distinctiveness.

The Council set out that guidance in the ‘Type and Affordability of Housing Supplementary Planning Document’ (SPD), identifies the importance of maintaining appropriate stock of smaller, lower cost, market dwellings in the countryside and the size of extensions to houses in the countryside should be controlled as this can otherwise create larger and larger dwellings.

The proposal would have a modest footprint and height, with minimal views from any public vantage points due to its position attached to the rear elevation of a recently constructed two-storey side extension. It would have a simple design and the discreet location, at the rear of the property, as well as its appropriate scale, would ensure that the proposal would not detract from the character and appearance of the original cottage. Furthermore, the use of appropriate facing materials would ensure that the proposal would have an acceptable appearance that assimilates well within the context of the existing extension and other buildings within the site.

[name] acknowledge that the proposed single storey rear extension, along with the recent two storey extension would cumulatively increase the size of the original cottage markedly and result in a much larger dwelling than the original cottage, the proposed extension is small in itself. Therefore, the resultant development would not overwhelm the appearance of the original cottage and it would not result in an overly large dwelling in the countryside.

For the reasons outlined above, the proposal is acceptable, and would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the host building. Consequently, the proposal would accord with Policies CS5 and CS6 of the CS, Policy MD2 of the SAMDev and the principles set out in the SPD.

I have had regard to conditions suggested by the Council, as well as to the Framework and national Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to impose a condition that requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for certainty. A condition to secure that external materials, relating to the proposal, are those specified on the approved plans, would also be necessary in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area.

The proposed development would accord with the development plan, and there are no material considerations to lead me to determine the appeal other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal is allowed.