Appeal 6001584

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission is refused.

The Council did not determine the planning application. However, it has indicated that had it been able to issue a decision, it would have refused permission for reasons relating to the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. The Council has submitted 2 officer reports which are broadly similar and both refer to 2 similar reasons for refusal. The appellants have had the opportunity to comment on both, and I have taken both into account in considering the main issue.

Within the appeal submission, the appellants provided 3 sets of alternative plans for consideration, each removing elements of the proposal originally submitted to the Council. At the final comments stage, a further set of amended plans was submitted, including changes to the external appearance of the proposed 2-storey extension and the removal of the proposed first floor terraces to the existing dwelling. It is not the purpose of the appeal process to evolve a scheme, and it is therefore important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially the same scheme before the Council and interested parties at the application stage. I have nevertheless considered whether to accept the amended plans.

Having regard to the Holborn judgment (Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin)) which refined the Wheatcroft principles (Bernard Wheatcroft Ltd v SSE [JPL 1982 P37]), I conclude that the amendments provided with the final comments constitute a substantial change to the scheme considered by the Council. I am mindful that the Council and those who should have been consulted on the changed development have not had the opportunity to make representations. I therefore cannot be certain that accepting this amended scheme would not be prejudicial to interested parties. As for the three sets of alternative options submitted alongside the appeal, the appellant has made it clear that the original proposal remains the preferred option. I have therefore determined the appeal against the plans considered by the Council when it made its decision.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area.

The appeal property forms part of a former traditional farm complex comprising a farmhouse and associated agricultural buildings. Although the farm buildings are now in residential use, the group retains strong evidence of its agricultural use. Their rectangular arrangement around what was likely a shared central courtyard is still clearly appreciable. The property’s location, accessed via a long private track and set within a low‐lying agricultural landscape, further reinforces this association.

Within the group, the dwelling at the appeal property is visually dominant due to its scale and position close to the main access. The Council notes that the original barn was demolished and re-built. Nevertheless, the building remains a large and attractive variegated brick structure that retains strong references to its agricultural past. Despite its size, the number of openings is limited, with substantial areas of wall preserved. Window and door openings vary in size and form, some appearing to replicate traditional features such as former cart‐door openings. The use of timber panels and muted colours to these helps maintain an agricultural character. Additional detailing, such as ventilation slots and brick arches, also reinforces this impression. Overall, the dwelling presents as a sympathetic and visually convincing barn conversion.

The proposed 2-storey extension would represent a substantial addition to the existing dwelling. Positioned at a right angle to the main building, it would significantly alter the dwelling’s form from a simple long rectangle to an L-shaped configuration. Although the extension would partly utilise the footprint of the existing garage, it would extend it to both the north and south and physically link it to the dwelling. The existing garage is single storey, clearly subordinate to the main building in both scale and design, and retains a simple agricultural form and appearance. In contrast, the extension would not be subservient and would compete with the existing building through a combination of its scale and design.

I acknowledge that some attempt has been made to create a degree of separation between the larger part of the extension and the existing dwelling using a glazed link. However, this link would be only slightly narrower and lower than the main part of the extension, and its pitched roof would connect directly into the roof of the existing dwelling. As a result, the visual separation achieved would be minimal. Furthermore, although the extension would be positioned towards one end of the building, it would cut across the distinctive long rectangular form, meaning the symmetrical hipped roof arrangement would no longer be discernible. This would fundamentally alter and cause harm to the building’s character and appearance.

The design of the proposed extension makes limited reference to the main building, which features an attractive brick façade, minimal openings and an expansive hipped roof, reflecting the former agricultural use at the site. The proposed timber frame and cladding echo elements of the existing garage, but these features form only a small part of the outbuilding’s appearance, which is itself much smaller in scale and serves a different function. The proposal also introduces extensive glazing, which would further detract from and erode the building’s simple agricultural character. Whilst the extension would have a pitched roof, and the materials could be conditioned to ensure that they match the existing building, this would not in itself mitigate the harm caused by the overall scale and design.

The proposal would introduce a sizable extension that would appear visually jarring and detract from the distinctive character and appearance of the existing building. In addition, the contrasting form and appearance of the extension would harm the wider group of buildings, which collectively retain a strong connection to their former agricultural use through both their arrangement and cohesive appearance. The extension would likely create confusion regarding the site’s earlier function, giving the impression that a large 2-storey barn once stood in its position, thereby undermining the character and appearance of the appeal property and the wider group.

The proposal also includes 2 first floor terraces with glazed balustrades, located at either end of the existing dwelling, including new door openings in the building. The end closest to the access road is currently a blank wall with no openings, whilst the opposite end contains just a single, partly boarded first floor window. The limited openings on either end of the building reinforce its agricultural character and these large and overtly domestic additions would further erode this. This harm would be exacerbated by the screens suggested by the Council to protect the privacy of neighbouring properties.

I acknowledge that there would be limited public views of the proposed development which would be contained within the existing garden. Nevertheless, the appeal property is located within a rural setting and the character of the existing dwelling, and the surrounding buildings, is that of a traditional agricultural farm group. The site falls within the landscape character type [name], specifically Policy Zone 07: Lound, as identified in the Bassetlaw Landscape Character Assessment. Within the landscape actions for this policy zone, the document sets out that built features should conserve the traditional character of the area and reinforce the local vernacular in new development. For the reasons set out above, the proposal would fail to do this.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the appeal property and the surrounding area. As a consequence, it would conflict with Policies ST33 and ST35 of the Bassetlaw Local Plan 2020-2038 (the Local Plan) and Policies 4 and 7 of the Lound Neighbourhood Plan 2021-2037. Collectively these policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure that development is of a high-quality design, respects the local context, reinforces local distinctiveness and protects and, where possible, enhances the distinctive qualities of the landscape character policy zone.

The Council’s statement also references that the proposal would conflict with Policy 41 of the Local Plan, which relates to non-designated heritage assets. However, the Council’s assessment confirms that it does not consider the appeal property to be a non-designated heritage asset, largely due to the barn range being demolished and rebuilt, diminishing its historic significance. The evidence before me does not lead me to reach a different view and therefore I find no conflict with Policy 41. However, the absence of harm in respect of heritage assets is neutral in my consideration of this appeal and does not alter my overall conclusion.

The appellants have a growing family, and the proposed extension would allow for additional bedrooms to accommodate them in a safe and comfortable manner, improving their living conditions and allowing the appellants to remain in the community, close to the equestrian business, rather than being forced to seek a larger home elsewhere. The development would also provide the appellants with a home office, without compromising family living space, and a recreational facility in the swimming pool. [name] have given the appellants’ personal circumstances careful consideration, I am mindful of the advice contained in Planning Practice Guidance that, in general, planning is concerned with land use in the public interest. It is also probable that the proposed development would remain long after the current personal circumstances cease to be relevant. For these reasons, I therefore find that this factor is not sufficient to outweigh the harm that would be caused contrary to the development plan.

I acknowledge the appellants’ concerns regarding the Council’s handling of the application, including the absence of objections from the Conservation Officer. I also note that no objections were raised by occupants of neighbouring properties or consultees. These matters are neutral in my consideration of the appeal. The proposal would meet modern standards for energy efficiency and accessibility, improve vehicular access, and the appellants intend to retain existing trees and deliver high‐quality landscaping to strengthen local character and enhance biodiversity. I give these considerations limited weight. They do not outweigh the harm identified above, nor do they alter my conclusion on the main issue.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations that would outweigh this conflict. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.