Appeal 3329696

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a single storey garden room extension to side/rear elevations at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application ref: 23/02411/FUL, dated 2 June 2023, subject to the following

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: Proposed Block Plan – Plan ref: 2301-5-013 005, rev. B, dated 14 March 2023; [name] – Plan ref: 2301-5- 013 002, rev. B, dated 14 March 2023; Garden Room Proposed Plan and Elevations – Plan ref: 2301-5-013: 001, rev. C, dated August 2003.

The decision turns on the likely effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of [site address] and its immediate surroundings.

The appeal dwelling, [site address] , is located immediately south of the A4117 [address], west of the small settlement of [site address] . [site address] had been converted to residential use by adapting part of a former granary building. It is one of 3 in a group, including the semi-detached [name] and [address].

[name], the Appellant, wishes to extend his home by adding a single storey 24m2 floor area garden room extension wrapped around the eastern and southern elevations of the house. The extension would have a plain clay tiled pitched roof; the walls built with brick to also match the existing building.

[name] said the present appeal project, (drawing 2301-5-013 001, rev. C), was a modification of an earlier scheme, (drawing 2301-5-013 003, rev. B). It was changed following criticism of the earlier mansard type roof design. The Council’s Conservation Officer had welcomed the alteration to the roof design. But the footprint remained excessive. Harm to the character of the building as a non-designated heritage asset would be caused, although of less than a substantial nature.

The Council said the extension would have an unacceptable impact on the original dwelling. It would overwhelm the original barn, intrinsically and irreversibly altering its character, appearance, form and layout. The harm to this non-designated heritage asset would be substantial. The addition would not be of a subservient scale to the main dwelling. It would be an overdevelopment of the property.

I agree with the Council’s view that the former granary buildings retain some of typical historic farm stead character of the area, but that the conversions to 3 dwellings means they no longer have features that would characterize a former granary. As the Council said, their significance lies in their traditional appearance, particularly in terms of their facing brickwork, stone walling and roof tiles. The proposed use of matching roof tiles and walling brickwork would help retain much of that traditional appearance, even though the extent of glazing proposed would add a degree of incongruity. But especially as much of the earlier granary character has been lost, the modern addition as proposed would not, in my view, be so visually harmful to its host building as to be unacceptable. The preference for the extension’s fully tiled pitched roof reaching up close to its eaves is likely to reduce some if its subservience to [site address] dwelling. However, I agree with [name] that it would not be a disproportionate addition to [site address] .

I conclude that planning permission should be granted for the appeal extension. The general condition limiting the duration of the permission is applied, (s.91 of the Act), as is a condition defining the amended scheme as shown on submitted drawing No. 2301-5-013: 001, rev. C.