Appeal 6005820

The appeal is dismissed.

While the proposal has been presented as a replacement building, the Council indicates that the existing outbuilding does not benefit from planning permission. This is not disputed by the appellant. Even if I were to accept the proposal as a replacement, the existing structure is significantly smaller in scale and of a simpler design than the appeal proposal. Consequently, it is not directly comparable to the scheme before me. It therefore carries limited weight in the consideration of the appeal.

The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal property comprises a modest former agricultural building and forms part of a small cluster of dwellings. Outbuildings associated with neighbouring properties are subservient in scale to their respective host dwellings, thereby preserving the prominence of the principal buildings and maintaining a clear and legible building hierarchy. Despite its proximity to the nearby industrial estate and the planned extension, the site’s immediate setting is characterised by open fields which contribute to a distinctly rural character, and it is within this context that the proposal would be experienced.

Although the conversion has retained much of the building’s traditional agricultural character, domestic additions including the gravel driveway, patio, and formalised lawn have eroded its purely agrarian qualities. The proposed use of timber cladding, Staffordshire blue tiles, and the overall design approach would not appear discordant with the traditional character of the host building and its rural context. Furthermore, the siting and building arrangement would broadly reflect the pattern of traditional agricultural complexes in the countryside.

However, the footprint of the proposal would be excessive in comparison to the host property, and the roof form, while reflecting the existing pitch would not be subservient in height. Consequently, its overall scale and massing would compete with, rather than defer to, the host property, resulting in a dominant and intrusive form of development. Although public views of the proposal would be limited, its unduly dominant and disproportionate scale in relation to the host property would be visible from the lane on the approach to the site.

For these reasons, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area contrary to Policies E2 and N1 of the Plan for Stafford Borough 2011-2031. Amongst other aspects, these policies seek to secure a high standard of design which takes account of local character and context.

The appeal site is not within or near designated heritage assets. However, this is a neutral factor and does not weigh in favour of the proposal.

The appeal site lies within 5km of the [name] ([name] and [name]) Ramsar Site. This comprises a diverse range of habitats and supports several rare species of plants associated with wetlands, invertebrates and insects. However, as I am dismissing the appeal on other grounds, it is not necessary for me to assess the effect of the proposal on the designated site.

For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.