Appeal 6004608

The appeal is dismissed.

The property is located within the Green Belt. This matter is not at issue between the parties and the Council has assessed that the proposal is not inappropriate development within the Green Belt. I agree with this assessment and my decision deals solely with the reason for refusal given by the Council.

The main issue in the appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

[site address] is a dwelling formed from a barn conversion with a substantial rear garden located on a rural lane where the prevalent design characteristic is of traditional rural buildings. Notwithstanding a number of roof lights within the rear roof slope, the main roof form of the dwelling retains an overall simplicity. Overall, the original linear form and agricultural function of the building is discernible reflecting its historic use and character as an agricultural building.

Amongst other things, Policy BE4 of the Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2029 requires any development proposal to adapt rural buildings to be accommodated without extensive rebuilding or alteration to the existing appearance of the building. The Council has also produced guidance for the conversion of farm buildings (Historic Building Guidance Agricultural Buildings and [name] 2010), which states that inappropriate design elements can be highly destructive to the character, historic fabric and setting of a former barn. The appellant disputes the status of this guidance which is referred to by the Council as adopted supplementary planning guidance. Given its status is unclear, I have regarded this as informal guidance. Nonetheless the thrust of the general principle has relevance to the proposal before me.

The proposal would introduce a significant amount of new glazing within the rear elevation of the former agricultural building. The 3 no sloping and vertical rooflights in particular would interrupt the simple linear form of the roof slope significantly enlarging an existing opening to create additional glazing causing the roof slope to appear cluttered and uncharacteristic of an historic building of this nature. The proposal would insert bigger and new windows into a relatively blank and intact part of the rear elevation and would disrupt the significant solid to void ratio found on this particular part. Overall, the proposed rooflights would separately and collectively create a more domestic appearance to [site address] which would undermine its agrarian past and use.

The appellant refers to a prevalence of rooflights within the area, including ones found within the adjacent dwelling. I accept that rooflights are typically found in converted agricultural buildings but nonetheless they are modern domestic features. In this instance the addition of new rooflights, some of a new style and form, would over-complicate the overall simplicity of the roof slope. The proposal would not increase the scale and mass of the building and the alterations are to the rear of the property and not subject to public views. However they would result in features inconsistent with the integrity and historic character of the barn. I acknowledge too that the building is not listed nor within a conservation area. However these factors would have a neutral effect and do not weigh in favour of the proposal. Whilst the National Planning Policy Framework does not prevent change, this does not in itself justify introducing features which would dilute the historic character of the former barn.

For the above reasons, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and would be contrary to Policy BE4 of the Local Plan, which provides, amongst other matters, for additions to converted rural buildings to be accommodated without extensive rebuilding or alteration to the external appearance of the building.

I acknowledge that the introduction of additional glazing would provide enhanced lighting within sleeping accommodation for the benefit of the occupiers of the dwelling. These rooms are already lit by rooflights inserted as part of the initial conversion and served by secondary windows. I found on my site visit, albeit on a sunny day, the bedrooms to be adequately lit by natural light but there is no information before me which demonstrates that daylight levels to these rooms are inadequate. I accept that the fenestration configuration in the dwelling would have been dictated by constraints at the time of renovation of a building which was not originally designed as a dwelling. However this is not untypical of living in a former agricultural barn and in itself does not justify harmful development.

For the reasons given above, I hereby dismiss the appeal. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR