Appeal 3356408

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a single storey extension with bedroom, dressing room and specially equipped en-suite bathroom and external staircase at [site address] , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/2277N, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos SDA0000/07 (Proposed Site Plan), SDA0000/08 (Proposed Ground Floor Layout Plan), SDA0000/09 (Proposed First Floor Layout Plan), SDA0000/10 ([name] – (1 of 2), Date: June 24), SDA0000/11 ([name] – (2 of 2), Date: June 24) and Site Location Plan, Scale 1:1250.

The external materials of the single storey extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The surfaces of the external staircase hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on drawing no SDA0000/10 ([name] – (1 of 2), Date: June 24)

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The name of the applicant on the original application form is [name]. This is different to the name of the appellant on the appeal form, which is stated as ‘[name]. However, the appellant has confirmed that the appeal is being Appeal Planning Officer APP/R0660/D/24/3356408 pursued by [name], which is the same as on the original application form, and so this is the name I have used within the banner heading above.

The site address on the original application form is ‘[address] Barns, [site address] , Chorley, [name] [postcode] ’. However, on the submitted plans, the address is listed as ‘ [site address] , [address], Chorley, Nantwich [postcode] ’. Nevertheless, the appellant has confirmed in both their appeal form and statement of case that the correct site address is in fact ‘ [site address] ’. Despite the inconsistencies, since the appellant has confirmed the correct address in their appeal submission, this is the one I have used within the banner heading above, which I am satisfied accurately describes the site address.

The council’s decision notice refers to the single storey extension. However, the proposal includes an external staircase. Whilst the staircase did not form a reason for refusal; in their officer report, the council commented that additional plans and information would be required to consider the impact of the staircase. The appellant has provided revised ‘[name] – (1 of 2)’ and ‘[name] – (2 of 2)’, both dated June 24, which include further details of the staircase. The revised plans do not fundamentally change the application. Furthermore, the location of the external staircase was clearly shown on the original ‘Proposed Site Plan’, and its general appearance was evident on the original ‘[name] – (1 of 2), Date: April 23’. I am also satisfied that no party would be prejudiced if I were to accept the revised plans. I have therefore accepted the revised plans as part of the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed single storey extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

[address] Barns (No 3) is a detached dwelling situated within substantial grounds in a rural area. The dwelling spans a sizable area and includes two-storey and single-storey sections, most of which feature a tiled dual-pitched roof and brick elevations. It exhibits a discernible L-shaped form, strengthened by its simple frontage and its consistent materials and window arrangement. Whilst it has a more varied appearance to the rear, owed to the mix of dual and mono-pitched roof forms and brick and timber materials, it nevertheless appears as a high-quality and attractive dwelling overall. In that regard, it contributes positively to the rustic character of the group of former farm buildings it sits within.

The proposed single storey extension would elongate the existing single storey section at No 3 to which it would adjoin. Despite this, given the modest scale of the extension, it would nonetheless appear as a proportionate addition to the host dwelling and would not erode its L-shaped form. Moreover, the external design of the extension, with its matching roof form and materials, would reflect the rustic appearance of the dwelling and would be absorbed within the more varied rear elevation. Therefore, the single storey extension would maintain the high-quality appearance of the host dwelling and it would be sympathetic to the rural character of the group of former farm buildings. Appeal Planning Officer APP/R0660/D/24/3356408

I am cognisant that paragraph 4.10 of the Crewe and Nantwich Extensions Supplementary Planning Document [2008] (SPD), although of limited weight due to its age, states that extensions to barn conversions will normally be resisted to retain its simple, bold and vernacular form. Nonetheless, having found the proposal to be proportionate in scale to the existing dwelling and to be in character with its style and use of materials, the proposal would have no material impact on its vernacular form.

In summary, the single storey extension would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling. It would comply with Policies SE1, SD1 and SD2 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Local Plan Strategy 2010 - 2030 (2017), as well as GEN1, HOU11 and RUR11 of the Cheshire East Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (2022). Amongst other matters, these policies require development to contribute positively to the character and identity of an area and should respect the character of the existing building. The proposal would also adhere to the overall design principles of the National Planning Policy Framework and the SPD, which advise that developments should be sympathetic to local character.

The proposed external staircase would be of an open design whereby the host dwelling would be largely visible through the staircase. It would be formed of a powder coated aluminium finished in a very dark grey or black which would reflect the colour palette of various features of the dwelling, including its roof tiles, fascia and rainwater goods. Moreover, the external staircase would be discreetly located to the rear of the garage within the parking area, which has limited visibility towards it. For these reasons, I am satisfied that the external staircase would not detract from the rustic character and appearance of the host dwelling and its countryside setting.

I have included the standard time limit and approved plans conditions in the interests of certainty and clarity. I have also included conditions requiring that the external staircase is formed of the materials which are annotated on the plans and that the materials used in the single storey extension match those of the host dwelling, in the interests of ensuring that the development positively contributes to the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

The proposal would comply with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which would outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.