Appeal 6003121

The appeal is dismissed.

A consultation draft of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 16 December 2025 but given that this is at the consultation stage I do not consider it necessary to invite comments from the parties at this time.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of [site address] .

The appeal site includes [site address] (the appeal building), a former agricultural building converted to a dwelling together with other buildings, driveways and gardens. The appeal building was originally a barn but converted to a dwelling sometime in the late 1980’s early 1990’s1. It is a stone building with a slate roof and although a lean-to-extension appears to have been added, its appearance is that of a sensitively designed barn conversion in a rural area.

As referred to above, the appeal site includes other buildings. I note planning permission was granted to convert a shippon into a double garage and granny annex in 19922. There is also a garage and other outbuildings on the appeal site. There is a detached property and a number of outbuildings on the adjacent site to the west ([address]). Other than small groupings of buildings, the area is characterised by its open countryside. The appeal building is located close to the road and so is very prominent with its side elevations also clearly seen from the lane. 1 Planning permissions were granted in 1987 Ref: 06/1986/1126 and 1989 Ref: 06/1989/0882 for the conversion of a barn to a private dwelling. 2 Planning Application Ref: 06/1991/0750.

The existing building is an attractive and sensitively designed barn conversion that still retains its heritage as a former agricultural building. The cat-slide roofed lean-to does not detract from this. The proposed extension, however, would be much more domestic in appearance introducing a rearward projection with a pitched roof and gable end that would be at odds with the linear design of the former barn. I appreciate that the building has been in residential use for many years but this does not justify spoiling what was clearly a well designed conversion that continues to make a positive contribution to its rural setting.

I appreciate that the appeal building is not a designated or a non-designated heritage asset and alterations have taken place to its appearance as well as its use. However, the fact that it has been in residential use for many years does not negate its rural heritage but rather is a successful example of the building’s use and purpose adapting to change. The proposed building work would be of a high standard and appropriate materials are proposed. I am also mindful that the proposal would not alter the front elevation of the building and the additional floorspace added by the proposal would also be modest. Whilst the requirements of family accommodation may change over time, I am not convinced that the proposed works are necessary for the continued viability of the building but rather they would undermine the original conversion and its integration into the landscape.

Local Plan3 Policy H8 relates to house extensions and primarily seeks to avoid harm to residential amenity or the character of the neighbourhood. There is no dispute that residential amenity would be harmed or that the proposal would have an adverse effect on the neighbourhood. Local Plan Policy D19 refers to the conversion of rural buildings and the [name] for rural development4 sets out guidelines for various rural developments. They note that a sympathetic approach is necessary for residential conversions in order to avoid fundamentally altering the character of the building. The proposal does not relate to the conversion of the building as this has already taken place many years ago (about 35).

However, the aims of this policy and SPD are to protect the countryside whilst recognising the changes necessary over time. Although this policy and SPD are not strictly relevant, their aims would be undermined if at a future date, former barn conversions failed to respect their agricultural origins. Furthermore, Local Plan Policy D13, seeks to ensure that the character of the house is not adversely affected and extensions are designed to reflect the style of the original building, amongst other things. The proposed extension would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of [site address] in conflict with Policy D13.

I note the presence of a maternity roost for [name] bats and accept that any risks of disturbing roosting bats can be mitigated. I am satisfied that the development could proceed whilst retaining the bat roost subject to timings in accordance with the appropriate licence from Natural England and the provision of compensatory roost features. This is a matter that could be addressed by a suitably worded condition. 3 Preston City Council – Preston Local Plan 1996 – 2006, adopted 26 April 2004. 4 Central Lancashire Rural Development Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) [name] 2012.

I also accept that the proposal would not have any adverse implication with regard to residential amenity or highway safety. Although it would not impact on the wider countryside, it would undermine the original characteristics of this rural building which would result in lessening the agricultural link the appeal site has with its setting in the countryside. These matters do not alter my conclusion on my main issue.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Consequently, for the above reasons the appeal should be dismissed.