Appeal 6003188

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form did not provide an address for the appeal site but described it as “Land associated with old agricultural barn sited in [address] Lingwood”. I have taken the site address in the banner heading above from the appeal form.

The appeal site includes a barn (the existing barn). Prior approval for residential conversion was found not to be required under Class Q of the General Permitted Development Order (2015) (as amended)1. After that, planning permission was granted for the replacement of the existing barn with a self-build dwelling and cart lodge, along with the change of use of the attendant agricultural land to residential garden (the permitted scheme)2. 1 Application Ref 2023/3475. 2 Application Ref 2024/3655.

The appeal scheme essentially involves erecting much the same dwelling as approved in the permitted scheme but in a different location, further towards the eastern edge of the site. It would also involve a larger detached garage building, erected further to the south.

The main issue is the effect that varying the condition would have on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site is part of a small cluster of buildings at the southern end of [address]. This cluster is to the south of central Lingwood and separated from it by open fields. Much of the land around is arable. The buildings on the eastern side of the cluster, including the appeal site barn, are largely traditional and/or agricultural in appearance.

Though functioning independently of each other in the main, the eastern cluster buildings are close enough together that it is difficult to appreciate any of them in isolation; From most surrounding vantage points, whichever building one views, at least one other building is prominent in the immediate foreground or backdrop. This gives the cluster the appearance of being, or having once been, a farmstead.

Whereas one cannot easily see through the eastern cluster to what lies beyond, the views either side of it are wide-ranging and over open land. This contrast emphasises the close-knit character of the cluster, giving it the appearance of a small island of development with a traditional, agricultural character. This effect is enhanced by the appeal site barn appearing to sit within, and relate to, the surrounding arable land. Indeed, there is no visible indication of the extent of the appeal site.

I have no reason to feel that the cluster is anything other than a longstanding feature in the local landscape. I found it to contribute positively to the wider agricultural character of the area. With reference to the Broadland District Landscape Character Assessment, it contributes to a strong rural character and recognisable sense of place.

Whilst the appeal scheme dwelling would imitate the existing barn in many respects, and incorporate broadly traditional agricultural materials, the amount of glazing on its eastern elevation and the creation of a domestic curtilage around it would make its residential purpose readily apparent. Whilst new planting would, to a degree, soften and screen the appearance of the building in the landscape, direct views of it would nevertheless be available, particularly over the adjacent fields.

Under the appeal scheme, the gap between the dwelling and the nearest existing building would be appreciably greater than any of the gaps between buildings in the cluster at present, such that whereas the existing barn appears part of the cluster, the appeal scheme dwelling would appear detached from it. This would undermine the existing, close-knit character of the eastern cluster, its appearance as a traditional farmstead, and the role it plays in the rural character of the area.

Though the dwelling would be directly comparable to the existing barn in size, its position, along with that of the proposed detached garage, would spread built development outwards in two directions, harmfully eroding the openness of the land. As the site boundary is not readily distinguishable from the rest of the field, the spread of development outwards would have little evident rationale to mitigate this visual effect; It would appear as an incursion into arable land rather than the relocation of a building within a defined site.

Both the Class Q scheme and the permitted scheme are greater than theoretical possibilities. However, neither would result in the harmful effects I have described above to the same degree. As such, the avoidance of those schemes is not a benefit of the appeal proposal and does not weigh in its favour.

The appellant contends that the appeal scheme would allow for better integration with landform, improved planting opportunities, and a more coherent layout. Given my observations above, however, it is not evident that the appeal scheme would better integrate into the land or provide a more coherent site layout than the fallback schemes insofar as the existing character and appearance of the areas is concerned. I also see little reason to accept that the planting opportunities would be better, particularly as the appeal proposal involves locating the dwelling so far to the east that little space would remain for planting on that side of the site.

The appellant contends that, compared to the fallback schemes, the appeal proposal would significantly improve the privacy and outlook of neighbours on [address]. Even if I accept that the greater separation distance would constitute an improvement, I have little evidence that the fallback schemes would cause harm in respect of privacy or outlook. I therefore attach minimal weight to this purported benefit.

I am informed that tall trees along the western edge of the site would (firstly) result in the western side of the dwelling, even as approved in the permitted scheme, being a cold, damp environment and (secondly) make the nearest amenity space almost unusable and cold most of the year.

I do not doubt that more sunlight would reach the western part of the dwelling under the appeal scheme. However, in the absence of detailed evidence on the point, it is not clear that either fallback scheme would lead to unacceptable levels of internal daylight or sunlight.

Indeed, on the first point, I note that in the appeal scheme the western ground floor windows of the dwelling, which one would expect to be those most affected by shade, would serve a pantry, utility room, WC, and entrance lobby, rather than habitable rooms. Similarly, the first-floor western windows would serve bathrooms save for in one instance. Even then, all three first-floor windows would be near, or past, the point where the trees terminate, and also be some seven metres from the boundary. These are not conditions which inherently suggest that natural light levels to upper floor windows would be poor.

In respect of the second point, it is not evident to me that the appeal scheme, in which a main garden would be enclosed by planting and buildings to varying degrees, would provide a better range and quality of amenity areas overall than the permitted scheme, in which occupants would have the choice of a more secluded garden to the west, in which shade may be beneficial in high summer, or an open garden to the east with views over countryside.

Taking all of these considerations into account, I attach minimal weight to the implications of the trees.

I recognise that the appeal proposal would allow the retention of the existing barn for secure storage during the course of construction. I have little to show me, however, that secure storage arrangements could not be made otherwise. Moreover, that is a modest temporary benefit, and minimal weight accrues to it.

Varying the condition as proposed in the appeal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area, contrary to Policy 2(5) of the Greater Norwich Local Plan (2024), Policies GC4(i) and (ii), and Policy 5 of the Lingwood and Burlingham Neighbourhood Plan (2022) where they require development to respect and enhance local character and distinctiveness, and for the building line of new development to be in conformity with the existing arrangement of buildings.

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.

The appeal is dismissed.