Appeal 6003007

The appeal is dismissed.

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 Council has found that the proposals would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt by virtue of their compliance with an exception in paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework. In so finding, the Council is also satisfied that the effect on the openness of the Green Belt would be acceptable. I have no reason to disagree with their conclusions in either respect. The main issue is therefore the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property is a substantial detached dwelling of simple, traditional form, constructed in red brick with a symmetrical principal elevation and a pitched, slate‐effect roof. Its design draws on vernacular rural characteristics, including a central gabled open porch, vertically proportioned fenestration, single storey side element and prominent end chimneys, giving it a broadly farmhouse‐style appearance. The dwelling has been enlarged through a first-floor rear extension, and has a porch added to the rear, both of which integrate visually with the original building. A large, detached garage, outbuildings and orangery structure are also positioned within the plot. The property is set within open countryside, approached by a long private driveway and enclosed in part by substantial brick boundary walls and gates, with neighbouring development to the west and a public footpath running to the south.

The single‐storey front addition would project markedly forward of the principal elevation, introducing a double‐gabled form that would compete visually and unacceptably with the simple, traditional roofline of the host dwelling and proposed first floor addition behind. The extensive use of glazing and zinc cladding, materials uncharacteristic of the existing building, would further accentuate its prominence and discordance. The two‐storey porch, also incorporating zinc and adopting an overtly modern appearance, would add another visually prominent focal point contrasting sharply with the established brick and tile palette. Taken together, these elements would disrupt the building’s clear architectural hierarchy and create a visually busy and poorly integrated composition that would unacceptably erode the understated rural character of the original dwelling.

While much of the development would be screened from public vantage points by existing outbuildings, the enlarged porch would remain visible from the nearby public footpath. Even in filtered or glimpsed views, its increased height, forward projection and contemporary materials would draw the eye, appearing as an intrusive and incongruous feature within an otherwise traditional and balanced front elevation.

Consequently, the appeal proposals would harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, they would conflict with Policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027, 2013, and guidance contained in the Supplementary Planning Document Design Guide, 2008, which amongst other things, seek to ensure development relates to the existing building, in terms of design and materials.

Earlier design iterations at pre-application stage did not raise concerns. However, the evidence indicates that the scheme submitted for determination differed substantially from those initial discussions. The Council advised that these changes limited the relevance of the earlier advice. In any event, pre‐application guidance is informal and cannot bind the authority.

For the reasons given above, the appeal proposals would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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