Appeal 6005813

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant has submitted a [name], which the Council states has overcome the second and third reasons for refusal. Therefore, only the first reason for refusal remains in conflict between the two parties.

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

The site already has permission to convert the barn into a one and a half storey dwelling, which had a proposed height of approximately 5.4 metres. The proposal is seeking to replace the barn with a large 5 bedroom dwelling. The existing barn has a ridge height of approximately 5.3 metres, with the proposed dwelling would be approximately 7.96 metres tall.

The existing barn is of no architectural merit and sits between trees, with wide open grassed spaces on either side. There is also a Public Right of Way that runs near the site. It was also noted that there were other large dwellings within the wider area, which are a mix of architectural styles.

Paragraph 131 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (Framework) states ‘The creation of high quality, beautiful and sustainable buildings and places is fundamental to what the planning and development process should achieve’.

Given, the nearby properties the proposed dwelling’s scale on its own is not considered to be harmful. However, whilst the design has used a H Plan style this has not reduced the bulk of the design. The proposal includes a two storey flat roofed element, in addition to the side to side gable roofed element, that prevents the use of separate wings from breaking up the mass of the proposal. In addition, the projecting front to rear gable elements are wide, which have raised the ridge height. Therefore, in total the proposed design is bulky and of an unsuitable scale and massing. The difference in design is substantially different to the previously approved dwelling on this site.

The use of projecting jettied gable at first floor and projecting ground floor elements on the principal front elevations complicates the design whilst further adding to the mass of the building. The proposed dwelling’s design is not a clear improvement on the fallback position and the existing landscaping does not prevent the proposal from having an unacceptable design.

I therefore conclude that the proposal’s overall design would not have an acceptable impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area. On this basis the proposal does not comply with Policy SP7 of the Colchester Borough Local Plan 2013-2033 Section 1 [name] 2021 that seeks to ensure that all development meets high standards of architectural design, as well as preserve and enhance the character the area. The proposal also does not comply with Policies DM15, OV2 and ENV1 of the Local Plan Colchester Borough 2017-2033 Section 2 [name] 2022 that in total also seek to ensure high quality design that protects the rural character of an area. The proposal also does not comply with Framework, given that the proposal does not reflect a high quality design.

The appeal site is located within the zones of influence of several habitat sites. However, as the appeal is to be dismissed, there is no need to undertake an appropriate assessment or to have regard to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations.

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.