Appeal 6001552

The appeal is dismissed.

In the banner heading above, I have removed reference to ‘retrospective planning application’ from the description of development as it is not relevant to the act of development. Works of conversion, alteration and extension of the appeal property have been started but not completed. I observed on my site visit that there are differences between the proposed plans and the first-floor windows which have been installed on the northwest elevation of the rear extension. Accordingly, I have dealt with this appeal based on the proposed plans before me, and on which the Council made its decision.

A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published for consultation during the course of this appeal. Having regard to its content and the nature of the disputed matters, I am satisfied that no prejudice would arise to either party by proceeding to issue this decision without seeking comments.

The appeal site is within the Green Belt. The Council has assessed that the proposed extension and alterations would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, and accordingly it does not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Based on the evidence before me, I have no reason to form a different view.

An amended Site Plan was submitted during the planning application which demonstrated that sufficient car parking could be accommodated on site. Consequently, the Council has confirmed that the second reason for refusal cited on the Decision Notice has been withdrawn.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area.

The appeal property (‘the barn’) is a traditional agricultural barn built of local gritstone with a pitched slate roof, which would have comprised a relatively low linear plan form sited alongside [site address] . It forms part of a small cluster of houses and agricultural buildings to one side of the lane, but the wider surrounding area is rural in character predominantly comprising open farmland with scattered houses, hamlets and farmsteads.

The ‘[name] Planning Document’ (2018) (SPD) advises that an old building will have features and detailing that cannot easily be rebuilt today, alterations need to be undertaken with care and insensitive changes can easily spoil a building.

Traditional barns have often been adapted and extended to respond to changing farming practices, and the two-storey extension does not project further from the original rear elevation of the barn than the single-storey lean-to extension it replaces. However, it has been designed with a relatively shallow asymmetric dual-pitched roof with a central valley, which reads as a double rear facing gable. I appreciate the extension allows two first-floor bedrooms to be accommodated, but the dual-pitched roofline appears contrived with the ridgeline awkwardly positioned just above the eaves of the original roof, obscuring part of its simple pitched form.

Moreover, in conflict with SPD paragraph 5.5, in combination, the width and height results in the extension appearing substantial in size and massing, and it unduly dominates the rear elevation. The gabled design exacerbates this and gives the extension a vertical emphasis, which is at odds with the scale and relatively low linear form of the rear elevation of the host barn.

The low eaves height means that from the north-east on [site address] , the flank (north-east) elevation of the rear extension appears a proportionate addition to the existing two-storey gable. However, I observed the extension to be highly visible and prominent from the public footpath which runs to the side and rear of the barn. From here, in conflict with paragraph 5.15 of the SPD, and notwithstanding the use of traditional materials, fenestration details and proportions, the rear elevation is no longer clearly recognisable as a former barn. The double gable of the extension appears a distinctly domestic addition which is to the detriment of the surrounding agricultural vernacular, and the rural character and appearance of the area. The proposed timber boundary fencing would not sufficiently screen the rear elevation from these public views, even if the footpath is not well used.

The mono-pitch roof of the single storey extension to the south-east (front) elevation has low eaves and continues the pitch of the original roof. It has been constructed in reclaimed sandstone, with stone corner quoins. The front extension, including the recessed roof below a first-floor window, is prominent when travelling in either direction along [site address] . Nevertheless, it appears a modest and sympathetic addition to the barn which does not detract from its agricultural vernacular, or the wider rural character of the area.

However, for the reasons I have given above, I conclude that the two-storey rear extension would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the host building, and the surrounding area. In addition to the conflict with the SPD, it would conflict with policies S1, EQ3 and EQ6 of the High Peak Local Plan (2016). Together, these seek to ensure high quality, locally distinctive design, require development to contribute positively to an area’s character in terms of scale, height and appearance, and that the reuse of buildings does not have an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the countryside.

The appellant refers to the absence of objections from the Parish Council or other interested parties, but this does not in itself mean an absence of harm.

The delivery of two family-sized dwellings would make a small but valuable contribution to local housing supply, and the development would make effective use of land through the conversion of an otherwise under-utilised building, utilising embodied energy. Moreover, it is acknowledged that a shortage of housing can be a barrier to accessing job opportunities, particularly in rural areas. There would also be a wider economic benefit to the area in terms of job opportunities created during further construction work, through the supply of materials and spend in the local economy. Despite the small scale of the development, I afford these benefits moderate weight.

No other objections have been raised by the Council in respect of car parking or adverse impacts to neighbouring properties. The proposed dwellings would also meet the minimum gross internal floor area set out in the ‘Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard’ (2015). However, these are neutral matters which do not weigh in favour of the proposal. Similarly, meeting the energy requirements of Building Regulations would be a neutral matter.

I have no persuasive evidence before me to demonstrate that the proposed development would deliver meaningful enhancements to wildlife habitat, either through soft landscaping or other measures. Moreover, I note that the bat roosting boxes are recommended in the ‘Bat Mitigation Plan’ as ‘mitigation and compensation measures,’ to account for impacts to existing bat roost features.

LP policies S1, EQ3 and EQ6 with which the development conflicts accord with the Framework. Therefore, the conflict I have found attracts full weight in this case.

The Council are unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. Therefore, paragraph 11d)ii of the Framework is engaged, which states that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, including the key policies cited.

The development would align with the Framework where it seeks to increase the supply of houses, acknowledging that small-scale development can make an important contribution to meeting the housing requirements for an area, often built out relatively quickly. It would further align with the Framework in so far as it would make effective use of land through the development of an under-utilised building, helping to meet identified needs for housing where land supply is constrained. These matters would attract moderate weight in favour of the scheme.

The proposal would conflict with the Framework where it seeks to achieve well-designed places recognising that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve. The Framework further requires that development that is not well designed should be refused, and decisions should ensure that development adds to the overall quality of an area and are sympathetic to local character. I give this conflict significant weight.

I therefore find that the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

For the reasons given above, the appeal proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, including policies in the Framework, that indicate a decision should be taken other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.