Appeal 3353031

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for French doors in master bedroom with Juliet balcony at [site address] , [site address] , [site address] , Meriden, Coventry [postcode] in accordance with the application Ref: PL/2024/00396/MINFHO and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

The construction of the development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: CV7_7HW_027_001.

The materials used in the development hereby approved shall match those in the existing building, or where these are not consistent, matching the parts of the building nearest to the works proposed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development upon the character and appearance of the host building.

The appeal site is a residential conversion of an agricultural building located in the West Midlands Green Belt, however it is not alleged nor do I find, being a minor alteration to an existing building, that the proposal amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. What is proposed is the insertion of a full height window at first floor level with a safety rail, or ‘juliet balcony’, to an upper floor room in the end gable of a brick-built, tiled-roof barn within a group of similarly converted buildings and their associated amenity spaces and parking.

The original conversion has successfully retained the overall form and appearance of the original buildings such that these make a distinctive contribution having the character of agricultural buildings in an open countryside setting whereas, in closer view, it is plainly apparent that the buildings have been adapted for residential use albeit with minimal additional fenestration above the ground storey.

The proposed window would be located below a window of similar width centrally located at the apex of the gable wall. As the gable lies adjacent to [site address] , the narrow rural road from which the building group is accessed, it is not prominent in a normal approach view. The proposal would be less visible due to being lower set and between some boundary trees which largely screen the lower parts of the building at this point. Even if the additional opening were discernible from fields to the north, the change would not generate any significant visual impact. The overall character and appearance of the building group would not be undermined nor would it harm the significance of its associated farmhouse which is a locally listed heritage asset. The Council suggest the proposal ‘does not respect the original design and shape of the barn’ however the proposal would be broadly consistent with the original alterations to those barns.

The Council refer to the [address] [name] (2010) ([name]) that encourage consistency with ‘the style, character and appearance of your original home’. However, what is proposed is a minor alteration to a converted building which has already been subject to significant alteration. I therefore find little conflict with either this guidance nor with Policies P15 or P16 of the Solihull Local Plan 2013 which, taken together, seek that development should conserve and enhance local distinctiveness and protect heritage assets. Consequently, having taken all matters raised into account, my reasoning directs that the appeal should succeed subject to timing and plans conditions and to ensure the development uses materials similar to those found on the existing dwelling.