Appeal 6007079

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission was previously granted for a single storey extension1. This previous permission has not been implemented.

The main issue in this case is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the Richmond Conservation Area.

The appeal property is a detached dwelling located in a residential area along [site address] , a short distance from its junction with [address]. The dwelling, which is an extended barn conversion, is stone-built and has a parking area to the side. It is widely visible in its surroundings, including from [name] itself and from [name], which connects Richmond to Catterick beyond the [name].

The appeal property is located within the Richmond Conservation Area (CA). The CA covers a wide and varying area, including the centre of the town and land around the [name] to the south and incorporates the town’s medieval street plan and castle. It is notable for its prevalence of traditional stone buildings, cobblestone squares, green open spaces and distant views.

[site address] itself is a narrow road which rises quite steeply to the north-west and along which there are stone walls and traditional stone dwellings, converted dwellings and new dwellings set within notably green and spacious surroundings. 1 Reference: ZD25/00086/FULL.

The appeal dwelling is of modest scale. It rises in height from single storey to two stories and it has limited fenestration, such that there are few openings to three sides of the dwelling and the main doorways and windows, which face towards and are clearly visible from [name], are themselves limited in number. In this way, the dwelling’s scale and fenestration responds to the property’s agricultural origins.

The proposed development would result in the addition of a large, tall two storey extension to the side of the dwelling. I find that the height, projection and overall massing of the proposal would combine to result in the creation of an unduly large and bulky addition. As such, the proposal would fail to appear subservient. Rather, it would unduly dominate the appearance of the host dwelling.

The harm arising from the above would be exacerbated as a result of the proposal drawing attention to itself in views from the south, including from [name] and from [address] to the north, from both of which the proposed development would appear as a large and cumbersome extension. Rather than knit into its surroundings, the proposed development would, due to its overwhelming scale, stand out as an overly large addition that would appear unduly dominant in its surroundings.

Given all of the above, I find that the proposed development would be out of character with the host dwelling and that it would detract from and fail to conserve the appearance of the Richmond Conservation Area.

Having regard to paragraph 215 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and to Planning Practice Guidance, I consider that the harm to the character and appearance of the Richmond Conservation Area would be less than substantial. This needs to be balanced against any public benefits the development may bring. There is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that the development results in public benefits that outweigh the harm identified.

Given the above, I find that the proposed development would fail to conserve the the character and appearance of the Richmond Conservation Area, contrary to the National Planning Policy Framework and to Policies CP12 and CP13 of the Richmondshire Local Plan 2012-2018 [name] (2014), which together amongst other things, seek to protect local character.

For the reasons given above, the appeal does not succeed.