Appeal 6006949

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. The site for which is in the Green Belt, but the proposed development would not be.

The above description reflects that which was agreed between the main parties. This does not change any element of the scheme nor affect the ability of the main parties to make their cases in respect thereof. In addition, the plans show a new raised external patio and rear ramp which the Council also considered. I shall do the same. Drawing nos. no. HAD3949-07a – [name] (Proposed Roof Plan) and no. HAD3949-08a – [name] ([name]) were revised plans albeit on which the Council based the decision. I have taken them into account.

With the above in mind, the main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area.

The appeal site comprises a detached two storey dwelling, with an existing single storey side extension and a detached garage. The host property has an ‘L’ shaped form, created by a two storey projecting element whose roof continues the pitch of the main roof. It is of a traditional, simple design, with a pitched roof, stone exterior and modestly sized openings with stone surrounds. Whether the appeal property is a barn conversion or not, it therefore clearly exhibits a traditional and agrarian character.

It forms part of a small cluster of buildings that have been converted to residential use. Collectively, these retain evidence of their agricultural origins through their close-knit layout, similar design, and consistent use of traditional materials. As such, the group continues to reflect the feel typical of a historic farmstead. The surrounding farmland reinforces the relationship between these buildings and the wider agricultural landscape. In these regards, the appeal property and the group make a positive contribution to the rural character and appearance of the area.

The proposed rear dormer would be set below the main ridge, in from both sides and finished in matching materials. However, it would be flush with the rear wall and occupy a substantial proportion of the projecting two storey element’s roof. This, combined with the forward projection, would add considerable bulk to the rear roof slope. It would cause an unbalanced appearance due to one side being disproportionately pronounced and would also diminish the original roof form’s legibility. The large apex window would further accentuate its presence, introducing a modern glazed feature that would contrast unacceptably with the host building and the group’s traditional character.

The proposed rear orangery would be single storey, modest in scale and use matching materials. Nevertheless, it would incorporate extensive glazing across the majority of its side walls and the upper portion of the rear elevation. This would give rise to an overtly modern appearance, at odds with the simple and restrained character of the host dwelling and wider group. Likewise, the proposed double doors and Juliet balcony would replace a small original window with a much larger opening. This would jar against the limited and modestly sized openings at first floor which contribute to the host building’s traditional appearance.

The car port would be subordinate to the host dwelling and fully open. It would be finished in matching roof materials and positioned discreetly to a corner of the site, with screening provided by the detached garage and adjacent dwellings. It would also have no greater impact than the existing garage, which is positioned further forward of the carport. Similarly, the proposed raised rear patio and ramp would comprise low level works, largely within an already hard surfaced area.

That said, the cumulative effect of the proposed dormer, orangery and new double doors with a Juliet balcony would erode the simple, rustic agrarian character of the host dwelling and the traditional qualities of the wider group. Their design, including the extensive glazed areas, with their reflective and smooth surfaces, would appear uncharacteristic and discordant. Moreover, the introduction of multiple additional elements to the rear would result in a more cluttered and visually complex form that would begin to obscure and unacceptably compete with the original building. Their limited public visibility would not justify them.

Therefore, the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. It would conflict with Policies DM16 and DM24 of the Pendle Local Plan 2025, the Design Principles Supplementary Planning Document 2009, Supplementary Planning Guidance: Development in the [name], and Paragraph 139 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

These policies and guidance state, amongst other things, that development that is not well designed should be refused. Proposals should respond to the site’s context, respecting the form of existing buildings and having regard to scale, design, materials and its visual impact. They should also be sensitive to the landscape setting and the countryside. Good design should also take note of existing architectural details and the range of materials and how they are applied.

I am aware that disability is a protected characteristic under the Public Sector Equality Duty set out under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act is also engaged as the proposal could affect the health, wellbeing or quality of life of persons within their home. The appellant experiences difficulty navigating and using the existing property, and the proposal would improve internal circulation and day-to-day functionality, enabling continued independent occupation by altering the existing home. In this regard, the proposal would benefit the appellant’s living conditions. This is a personal circumstance to which I afford weight in favour of the appeal.

The orangery would provide additional floor space, but there is no evidence on how it would meet the specific requirements of the disabled occupier. Likewise, the dormer would allow for a larger bedroom, but this does not appear intended for their use as it is on the first floor which does not appear to have disabled access. The proposed double doors and Juliet balcony would increase the outlook from [name] 1, identified for the disabled resident, but it is unclear how this would enhance internal circulation or daily functionality. I am mindful that personal circumstances and ownership of the land can change, but the effect of the development would be permanent.

Therefore, the proposal does not present as an opportunity to eliminate discrimination against a person with the protected characteristics of a disability. As such, dismissing this appeal would be proportionate and justified, as it would protect the wider public interest in terms of the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. The personal circumstances put forward in this instance do not outweigh the unacceptable effects of the proposal. Moreover, the proposal’s effective use of a building would not be a determinative issue, given its use is existing and will not change.

I note the appellant’s views that the development (with the exception of the carport) could be carried out under permitted development rights. However, I have assessed the proposal on the basis that express planning permission is required and was applied for in this instance. Additionally, given the dispute between the main parties as to whether the appeal property is a barn conversion or not, I cannot be sure that it does definitively benefit from these rights. In any case, and whilst the proposed works may or may not be achievable through permitted development, no such scheme demonstrating or confirming such is before me, and there is no obligation on this decision to require one.

The Council raises no concerns regarding the principle of development, its impact on the neighbouring occupier’s living conditions, or highway safety. Notwithstanding these acceptable aspects, for the reasons set out above, the proposal would be unacceptable due to the identified harm. The Council’s lack of discussion prior to the refusal of the application, absence of requests to amend the scheme or invitation to withdraw, are matters that should be taken up with them directly and are not for me to resolve here.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.