Appeal 6002974

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a change of use and alteration of part of the existing dwelling to form a new independent dwelling, and alteration of the existing dwelling including two storey and single storey extensions at [site address] , Warrington [postcode] in accordance with the application Ref 2025/01108/VARC, without compliance with condition number 10 previously imposed on planning permission Ref 2024/00026/FUL dated 19 April 2024 and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The main issue is the effect of granting planning permission without the disputed condition on (i) the character and appearance of the locally listed building and (ii) the openness of the Green Belt.

For clarity, the development previously granted planning permission has commenced, and the building has been subdivided into 2 dwellings. However, the original planning permission applies to both dwellings. Therefore, when I refer to the appeal building, I am referring to the building as a whole and both dwellings.

Within its Statement of Case, the Council has indicated that in effect the disputed condition seeks to remove development rights for enlargements permitted under Schedule 2, Part 1, classes A, B, D, and E and Schedule 2, Part 2, Class B of the

(the GPDO). It is therefore necessary to consider the effect of development permitted by these classes on the locally listed building and the Green Belt.

Within their Appeal Statement, the appellant refers to other classes of the GPDO, including Schedule 2, Part 1, classes AA and [name] the Council does not claim the disputed condition seeks to restrict development under these classes, I will not consider these classes further within the appeal decision.

The former agricultural barns which are attached to the farmhouse are identified as a locally listed building within the Warrington Local Plan, December 2023 (LP). Therefore, they are a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA). As outlined within the Council’s submissions and from my observations on site, the significance of the NDHA includes their appearance which reflects their historic use as barns. The converted barns are a good example of the vernacular architecture and have retained many historic features. Of particular importance is the form of the buildings and their relationship with the farmhouse.

Some extensions permitted under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO would result in the appeal building having a complex form. This would complicate the simple form of the NDHA and could result in a layout which would not be expected from converted barns. Accordingly, these extensions could be harmful to the significance of the NDHA as it could confuse the legibility of the appeal building.

Schedule 2, Part 1 Class A of the GPDO also permits alterations and improvements to dwellinghouses. However, the original planning permission is extant and is a material consideration. The disputed condition only restricts enlargements permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the GPDO. As such, it would be unreasonable for me to impose additional restrictions. Accordingly, I shall only seek to restrict enlargements permitted by Class A.

Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B of the GPDO permits additions or alterations to a roof, including dormer extensions. Due to the low ridge height, it is unlikely that habitable accommodation could be formed in the roof space. Nonetheless, works under this class would still be possible. Therefore, the potential effect of these permitted extensions needs to be considered. Dormers are not common features within barns and would not be expected to form part of a barn conversion. The construction of a dormer could be harmful to the significance of the NDHA as it could confuse the legibility of the appeal building.

Similarly, porches are not common features within barns and would not be an expected feature within a barn conversion. Whilst porches permitted under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class D of the GPDO are restricted in size, a modest porch could still confuse the legibility of the appeal building depending on its position.

I note that most of the development permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, classes A, B, and D of the GPDO would be to the rear of the appeal building or could be behind a tall boundary treatment. As such, the development would be largely screened from public views. Nonetheless, it would still be viewed from private land, and even if it is fully screened it does not mean that harm would not occur.

Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the GPDO permits the construction of buildings incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse. Given the significance of the NDHA, one would expect there to be some functional relationship between it and agricultural land. However, the residential use of the NDHA is established, and the appeal building is surrounded by gardens which are domestic in character. The construction of outbuildings or garages within the gardens would not alter the prevailing character. As such, it would not be harmful to the setting of the NDHA.

Schedule 2, Part 2, Class B of the GPDO permits the construction of a means of access to a highway. The appeal building fronts onto [address] and there are multiple points of access. Moreover, a new access would likely include additional hardstanding. Nevertheless, barns are usually surrounded by large amounts of hardstanding. Therefore, the creation of further accesses and more hardstanding would not be harmful to the character or appearance of the NDHA.

I acknowledge that the GPDO identifies Article 2(3) land, which includes conservation areas. In these areas some forms of development permitted by the GPDO is restricted. I accept that the Government chose not to include NDHAs within Article 2(3) land and could have done so if it so wished. However, the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) is clear that in weighing applications that affect NDHAs, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm and the significance of the asset. As the removal of the disputed condition may lead to harmful development, it is reasonable to impose specific restrictions on development permitted by the GPDO to offer the Council an opportunity to assess future proposals’ effect on the NDHA.

As there are general restrictions within the GPDO to development within conservation areas, and other legislation restricts works to a listed building, it would not be inequitable to impose specific restrictions on development that affects a NDHA. Furthermore, imposing restrictions does not indicate that the appeal building should be listed or form part of a conservation area.

Whilst the Council concluded that the previously approved development did not have a harmful effect on the setting of the NDHA, further extensions to the farmhouse could. Accordingly, it is reasonable to restrict development permitted by the GPDO to the whole appeal building.

Taking all of the above into account, I conclude that granting planning permission without the disputed condition could have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the locally listed building. It would be contrary to LP Policy DC2 which indicates that the Council will seek to protect local heritage assets. However, the wording of the disputed condition could be amended to restrict development permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, classes A, B, and D of the GPDO, only. The amended condition would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the locally listed building and would comply with LP Policy DC2, for the reasons set out above.

The appeal site is located in the Green Belt. The Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. There is no restriction on development permitted by the GPDO on buildings or land within the Green Belt. Therefore, consideration needs to be given to development permitted by each class and how it may affect the openness of the Green Belt.

The Design Guide1 advises that extensions should not exceed a 33% increase to the volume of the original building to prevent disproportionate additions. This guidance should form part of the assessment on whether development permitted by a particular class of the GPDO would be inappropriate in the Green Belt. For clarity, the construction of an outbuilding or garage incidental to the enjoyment of a dwelling would be classified as an extension to that dwelling.

Both dwellings benefit from large gardens. Under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the GPDO a building up to 4m tall and covering 50% of each dwelling’s curtilage could be constructed. [name] acknowledge that it is unlikely a building that covers 50% of the curtilage would be constructed, it is still possible. If such a building were constructed, it would be very harmful to the openness of the Green Belt, this is regardless of any screening by the appeal building or potential boundary treatments. Accordingly, it is necessary in this instance to restrict development permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the GPDO.

As above, the original planning permission is extant and is a material consideration. Out of the development permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the GPDO, the disputed condition only restricts the construction of garages and outbuildings. Consequently, it would be unreasonable for me to impose further restrictions under an amended condition. Therefore, I shall only seek to restrict the construction of garages and outbuildings permitted under Class E.

As part of the original planning permission, extensions to the farmhouse were approved. These extensions were modest in size when compared to the overall size of the appeal building. I therefore do not have a concern with regard to cumulative additions to the appeal building. Moreover, development permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, classes A, B, and D of the GPDO are restricted by the size of the original building. Modest extensions permitted by these classes are unlikely to exceed the 33% volume increase threshold specified in the [name]. On balance, these extensions, alone and in combination with approved development, would not represent disproportionate additions to a building. In accordance with the Framework, this would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The creation of vehicle accesses could be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt, as it could introduce vehicle movements to parts of the site. However, there are already several accesses fronting onto [address] and a large area of hardstanding. In this instance, the creation of further accesses and hardstanding would not have a harmful effect on the openness of the Green Belt.

On balance, I conclude that granting planning permission without the disputed condition could have a harmful effect on the openness of the Green Belt. It would be contrary to the general thrust of LP Policy GB1 where it indicates that planning permission for inappropriate development will not be granted, except in very special circumstances. However, the wording of the disputed condition could be amended to restrict the construction of garages and outbuildings permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the GPDO, only. The amended condition would 1 The Warrington Design Guide SPD, July 2024 ensure that the planning permission does not have a harmful effect on the openness of the Green Belt and would comply with LP Policy GB1, for the reasons set out above.

Taking account of the effect of granting planning permission without the disputed condition on the locally listed building and the Green Belt, it is necessary to restrict development permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, classes A, B, D, and E of the GPDO. However, as the disputed condition only sought to restrict extensions permitted by Class A, and the construction of garages and outbuildings, permitted by Class E, it would not be reasonable to restrict all development permitted by these classes. Furthermore, for the reasons set out above, it would not be necessary to restrict development permitted by Schedule 2, Part 2, Class B of the GPDO. Accordingly, an amended condition should be imposed.

Planning Practice Guidance2 (PPG) advises that the scope of conditions that restrict permitted development rights needs to be precisely defined with reference to the GPDO. [name] am imposing an amended version of the disputed condition, I will rephrase it to explicitly refer to classes within the GPDO.

PPG3 also advises that the blanket removal of freedoms to carry out small scale domestic alterations that would otherwise not require planning permission are unlikely to meet the tests of reasonableness or necessity. However, this is not a blanket removal of freedoms. Instead, the removal of rights under individual parts of the GPDO has been assessed. This approach is in accordance with the appeal decisions highlighted by both the appellant and the Council. Furthermore, the appeal building could have been extended or altered in accordance with development permitted by the GPDO for several years. Regardless, it was not and for the reasons set out the proposed restrictions are necessary and reasonable.

The appellant has highlighted development which is permitted by the GPDO but is not proposed to be restricted. This includes the construction of tall boundary treatments and the painting of the exterior of the appeal building. This development may be harmful to the significance of the locally listed building and/or the Green Belt. However, the disputed condition does not restrict this type of development. With this in mind, it would be unreasonable for me to impose further restrictions on this planning permission. Moreover, a lack of restriction on some forms of harmful development does not support removing restrictions on development permitted by the GPDO which could also cause harm.

Proposals are assessed in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In the Council’s opinion, planning permission without the disputed condition would be contrary to the LP. It was not necessary for the Council to highlight that the provision of the Framework does not change its assessment or that the proposal would be contrary to the Framework. 2 Planning Practice Guidance, Use of Planning Conditions, Paragraph: 017 [name]: 21a-017-20190723 3 Planning Practice Guidance, Use of Planning Conditions, Paragraph: 017 [name]: 21a-[phone]

The Council has indicated the conditions it considered would be necessary in the event that the appeal is allowed. In addition to the above, I have assessed the proposed conditions in light of the guidance within the Framework and PPG.

It is not necessary to attach a condition requiring development to commence within 3 years of the date of the decision, as works have commenced.

A condition specifying approved plans is necessary to ensure that the character and appearance of the area is conserved. I have also included the materials schedule within this condition, as it is not necessary for these details to be subject to a different condition. Similarly, a condition requiring the proposed rooflights to be flush with the roof plane is necessary to ensure that they conserve the appearance of the NDHA.

Conditions specifying the provision of parking areas and an electric vehicle charging point are reasonable to ensure that the proposed dwelling is adequately serviced with an appropriate parking provision and in the interest of highway safety. Similarly, a condition requiring details of the replanting of the hedge to ensure there is sufficient visibility is necessary in the interest of highway safety and conserving the character and appearance of the area.

A condition requiring the mechanical ventilation to be installed is necessary to ensure living conditions of the occupiers of the dwellings are not harmfully affected. Also, a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the [name], Roost Assessment, and the [name] and [name] is necessary to ensure that the proposed development does not have a harmful effect on protected species.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will grant a new planning permission without the disputed condition but substituting it and including those undisputed conditions that are still capable of taking effect.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following documents: i) Planning application forms ii) Design and [name] and additional information including [name] dated March 2020 iii) [name] dated 23 May 2018 iv) Location Plan v) Site Plan (drawing no. PL01) vi) Proposed Site Plan (drawing no. PL01A) vii) Existing Ground Floor Plan (drawing no. PL03) viii) Existing First Floor Plan (drawing no. PL04) ix) [name] (drawing no. PL06) x) Proposed Ground Floor Plan (drawing no. PL20B) xi) Proposed First Floor Plan (drawing no. PL21B) xii) [name] (drawing no. PL23B) xiii) Materials Schedule received on 15 July 2025 under application reference 2025/00686/DISC

The approved parking areas indicated on the Proposed Site Plan, drawing number (PL) 01A, submitted in relation to application reference 2025/00686/DISCON, shall be retained in perpetuity.

Prior to first occupation of the new dwelling, the [name] electric vehicle charger unit shall be provided, in the location indicated on the Proposed Site Plan, drawing number (PL) 01A, as approved under application reference 2025/00686/DISCON. The provision shall be retained as such thereafter.

Prior to the first use of any part of the development hereby approved, details of the transplanting and re-positioning of the hedge (or part thereof) along [address] to the south of the southernmost access point so that it is clear of highway visibility splays shall be submitted for written approval to the local planning authority. Such hedge as is so agreed shall be planting (or transplanted) in accordance with an agreed timescale. Should the replacement hedge die, be removed or become seriously diseased or damaged within a period of five years from initial planting, it shall be replaced by another in accordance with details to be agreed with the local planning authority and retained for the lifetime of the development.

Prior to first occupation, the Titon ‘smart’ MVHR ventilation system, approved under the details of application reference 2025/00686/DISCON, shall be fitted to the new dwelling hereby approved. The approved scheme shall be installed as indicated on the Proposed Ground Floor Plan Layout, drawing number 30BL/203/PL, revision C1 and Proposed First Floor Plan Layout, drawing number 30BL/204/PL, revision C1, submitted under application reference 2025/00686/DISCON, commissioned prior to first occupation of the site and shall be maintained and retained thereafter.

Notwithstanding the submitted drawings, the proposed rooflights shall be of the conservation style-flush with the roof plane and shall not project above it when open or closed.

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the [name] and Roost Assessment, dated 11 April 2025 and the [name] and [name] (BERS), dated 29th July 2025; submitted under application reference 2025/01191/DISCON.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), the following development shall not be undertaken: a) development permitted by virtue of classes B and D of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order; b) enlargements permitted by virtue of Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order; and c) the construction of garages or outbuildings permitted by Class E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order.