Appeal 6004453

The appeal is dismissed.

Notwithstanding the description of development set out above, the proposal also includes a single-storey extension to provide a lounge and the raising of part of the courtyard boundary wall. The planning application was determined on this basis, and I shall do the same.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area, including, in accordance with the statutory duty, whether the proposed development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Netherseal Conservation Area (CA), together with an assessment of its effect on the significance of designated and non-designated heritage assets.

[site address] stands within a group of buildings historically associated with [address]. The farmstead is located at the southwest edge of the village of Netherseal, at the far end of a narrow lane, and is somewhat detached from the rest of the village. [address] farmstead is located on a long, thin narrow site, probably associated with the medieval layout of farms in the area. Its historic core comprises a loose courtyard arrangement of buildings to the northeast of [site address] . The farmstead has a robust, red brick, agricultural character with pitched and tiled roofs and dates from around the mid-18th century. These materials are consistently found within the village which has an otherwise varied character.

The CA lies within the southern half of the village and comprises an unspoilt group of historic buildings centred around [name]. [address] farmstead lies within Area 2 of the CA and the group of buildings, including [site address] , are identified as buildings that contribute positively to the special architectural and historic character of the area by virtue of their finish, scale and location (Buildings of Interest) and are thus a non-designated heritage asset.

[site address] is an attractive, single-storey converted barn. It was a later addition to the [address] farmstead, along with a long, narrow building opposite which is now altered and in use as garages. [site address] itself has later additions resulting from the residential conversion and redevelopment of the whole farmstead. Of most relevance to this appeal, an extension wing was constructed at a right angle to the original barn. It also forms the southeast side of a courtyard which is further enclosed by approximately 1.8m high brick walls. The resulting building style, “L” shaped form and appearance are broadly in keeping with the traditional rural character of the wider farmstead group.

[site address] can be glimpsed from a public footpath and bridleway which run either side of the appeal site. Otherwise, there are limited views of the building from public vantage points, I therefore agree with the Council’s conservation Officer’s assessment that a main consideration in this case is whether the proposal would amount to a change of character of a Building of Interest within a CA and its setting.

The historic character of a place can be described as the group of qualities derived from its past uses that make it distinctive and may include its visual aspects and the features, materials, and spaces associated with its history, including its original configuration. The appeal scheme would result in further alterations to the historic form of [site address] .

A small extension is proposed to the western gable end elevation. It would follow the linear form of the barn and would not affect any historic fabric. Furthermore, it would be largely obscured from visual references to the farmstead. The Council raises no objection to this element of the proposal. Similarly, the Council raises no objection to the design, size and location of the proposed roof lights to the main barn. There are no reasons to disagree with these assessments.

Whilst the proposed larger, eastern extension within the courtyard would amount to a small percentage of the footprint of the whole farmstead, as the appellant states, it is also necessary to consider [site address] as a separate building following the conversion scheme. The extension would be an independent structure standing alongside the courtyard boundary walls. It would have a contemporary, brick and glazing appearance and a flat, green roof. The extension would be joined to the later wing by a glazed link. Although it would be lower than the other buildings in the farmstead, the uppermost roof of the extension and its rooflight would be visible above the extended height of the courtyard wall in views from the farmstead’s access drive and from the neighbouring property, [name].

In my assessment, the location, footprint and bulky massing of the courtyard extension would appear discordant and out of character with the built form of [site address] . It would not appear as a subordinate extension. Albeit that the courtyard is not a historical element of the farmstead, the extension would infill a significant area of the currently open space. The proposal would result in the further and harmful loss of the linear form which is an important agricultural characteristic of [site address] and the farmstead as a whole.

Notwithstanding that raising the height of the side boundary wall would help screen part of the upper level of the extension, I consider that the roof design would be out of character with the pitched, tiled roof vernacular. Overall, the courtyard extension would detract from the historic character of the building and would diminish its positive contribution to the CA as a Building of Interest.

Turning to the effect of the extension on the wider farmstead site, the residential conversion scheme inevitably allowed some domestication of the original buildings. However, this does not justify a further dilution of character through a piecemeal process of extension to a degree that would erode the historic layout of the farmstead. It is clear that the withdrawal of “permitted development” rights at the time of permitting the conversions were intended to maintain control over such future proposals.

The [site address] [name] (the SPD) requires the sensitive conversion and extension of former agricultural buildings. The SPD specifically precludes substantial extensions which constitute a high-density conversion. Notwithstanding that it primarily relates to conversions, I consider that this is useful guidance for further extensions to former agricultural buildings. The proposed courtyard extension runs counter to the guidance by reason of its overall size and insensitive design.

Furthermore, I am not convinced that the proposed plan arrangement is the only way in which to provide additional accommodation to meet the appellant’s needs. Indeed, the evidence indicates that the Council is willing to consider other forms of extension which would better relate to the character of the host dwelling. Moreover, whilst I note the appellant’s view that the layout of the internal accommodation is suboptimal, conversions of historic buildings often require compromise in the manner that the building is occupied.

The appellant refers to unsympathetic work being carried out to the neighbouring garage building and to large extensions which have been permitted alongside barn conversions elsewhere. However, the presence of such works is insufficient justification for permitting further unacceptable development at the appeal site. In any event, the scheme has been considered on its own individual merits.

I am not convinced that the proposed courtyard extension would allow the historic layout to be defined as the appellant indicates. Thus, by virtue of its layout, scale and location, I conclude that this extension would fail to preserve the historic rural character and setting of the Building of Interest when it is considered both individually and alongside the farmstead buildings. Consequently, the extension would fail to preserve the character of the CA. This would amount to less than substantial harm, to a medium extent, to the significance of the designated and non-designated heritage assets. The small public benefit deriving from the provision of additional residential accommodation is insufficient to outweigh this harm.

For the reasons set out, the proposed courtyard extension conflicts with the requirements of Policies BNE1 and BNE2 of the [site address] Local Plan Part 1 and Policies BNE10 and H27 of the [site address] Local Plan Part 2 which, in summary and of relevance to this appeal, require high quality design that respects historic context and preserves heritage assets. The scheme would not comply with the aims of the SPD that are set out above. The proposal also fails to comply with the core principle of the National Planning Policy Framework to conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance. As the emerging [site address] Local Plan Part 1 Review is at an early stage of preparation, it can be given little weight in this decision.

I have taken all other matters raised into consideration. These include objections to the proposal from neighbouring occupiers on the basis of overlooking/perceived overlooking, increased noise and loss of privacy which are unsupported by any convincing evidence. The height of the extension above the courtyard wall would not create a sense of enclosure or result in a loss of light to the neighbouring [name] such as to warrant dismissal on these grounds. The appeal property has a large garden in addition to the courtyard and sufficient amenity space would remain as a result of the proposed development. The change in the view/outlook from the neighbouring barn, the presence of an easement and the issue of setting a precedent are not matters that can be taken into consideration in this appeal. In respect of these other matters, I have reached the same conclusions as the Council.

No other points raised by any party affect my conclusions on the relevant planning issues. Accordingly, for the reasons I have set out, the appeal is dismissed.