Appeal 6005138

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host building, and on the surrounding area.

The appeal property, ‘ [site address] ,’ forms part of a small group of attractive traditional barn conversions and a farmhouse, located on the western side of [site address] within the open countryside.

It is constructed in a natural stone with a simple form and low linear layout, characterised by a cat-slide slate roof to part of its rear elevation. [site address] contributes positively to the character and appearance of the group of buildings, and its rear elevation is prominent from the field gate on [site address] and from the public right of way which runs close to its south-east boundary.

As evidenced by the historic mapping submitted by the appellant, the group of buildings to the north was not originally arranged as a simple linear range. However, [site address] was always of linear form, originally arranged in ‘L-shaped’ plan with its now semi-detached pair. Various wings, structures and ‘off-shoots’ may vary in height, angle and orientation but they have remained subordinate to the principal barns appearing ancillary to them and accordingly, there is a clear hierarchy and cohesiveness to the group of buildings.

In contrast, although designed with a simple form and pitched roof, the main ridge of the two-storey extension would be similar in height to the ridge of the roof of the main dwelling, and the ridge of the relatively narrow two-storey ‘link’ between the two would only be slightly lower. In combination with its high eaves, depth and width, this would result in a scale of building which would dominate, rather than appear ancillary to the host barn. It would be an incongruous addition, out of keeping with the hierarchy of the existing group, and by failing to appear subordinate to the original barn would conflict with guidance in the ‘Extending Your Home Supplementary Planning Document’ (2007) (SPD).

The proposed extension would be orientated at an angle to the rear elevation of [site address] . As a result, when viewed from the public right of way to the south-east, the two-storey corner of the extension would appear prominent, and it would detract from the simple low, linear layout and form of the host barn. It would also result in the legibility of the cat-slide roof of [site address] being all but lost. Further, the uncharacteristic shallow pitched roof and high eaves of the ‘link’ element would appear a discordant addition in longer views from the west, despite the use of high-quality matching or complementary materials.

The appellant has drawn my attention to an extant planning permission1 for a single-storey extension to [site address] and the construction of a detached garage, albeit only the rear extension has been built. On the evidence before me, I am satisfied that there is a real prospect that the detached garage would be built should this appeal fail, and as such there is a fallback position. However, as shown on the ‘[name] & Elevations’ the garage, although detached, would be sited parallel to the rear elevation, would be single-storey in height and its eaves would broadly align with the low eaves of the cat-slide roof of the host barn. I therefore find the fallback position would be less harmful than the appeal proposal, and accordingly it does not provide any justification for it.

The proposal would not be an isolated form of development, and it would be viewed alongside an existing group of buildings and within the context of the garden of [site address] and its associated domestic paraphernalia. It would have very little impact on the open and rural character of this part of the countryside, and I therefore find no conflict with Policy SP4 of the Wyre Local Plan (2011-2031) (2023) (LP). Nevertheless, for the reasons I have given, the height, scale and siting of the proposed extension would result in an unsympathetic and incongruent addition to [site address] and the wider group of buildings.

I therefore conclude that the proposed development would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host building, and the surrounding area. In addition to the conflict with the SPD, it would conflict with LP Policy CDMP3 which requires innovative design to be appropriate to the local context and must be designed to respect or enhance the character of the area with regard to height, scale, siting and orientation.

It is unclear from the evidence why a first-floor master bedroom would be required for fire-safety reasons, but I understand that the proposal arises from a need to extend a family home to accommodate an additional bedroom. However, I have very little evidence before me that the existing dwelling could not be adapted to better meet the needs of the family in a manner which causes less harm to character and appearance. Consequently, I afford this matter only limited weight.

The Council has raised no objection with regards to the effect of the proposal on flooding or on the living conditions of neighbours, but these matters weigh neither for nor against the proposal. Finally, whilst I note that were no objections from the 1 [name]. 20/01124/FUL Parish Council or from any neighbouring residents, this does not amount to an absence of harm.

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