Appeal 6008339

The appeal is dismissed.

At the time of my site visit, works were underway at the appeal dwelling including a hip-to-gable roof alteration, a rear dormer and a ground floor side addition. The appellant says that these works fall within permitted development (PD) rights and therefore could be carried out without planning permission; they also form part of the development for which planning permission is sought in this appeal. For the avoidance of doubt, I have assessed the proposal as it is shown on the submitted plans, and not as built nor stated by the appellant to be PD, because it was on that basis that the Council refused planning permission.

The main issues are firstly, the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host property and the local area; and secondly, whether the site is an appropriate location for the proposal having particular regard to relevant local and national planning policies.

Willowmead is a detached bungalow situated on the edge of Twyford. To one side of the dwelling is an area of hardstanding and a detached garage. Along the rear is a line of trees that forms an enclosure to the surrounding grassland. Notwithstanding the works that are currently underway, the dwelling remains a relatively modest building whose character derives principally from its simple form, limited footprint and understated appearance. It stands within a semi-rural setting.

On the opposite side of the dwelling is an area of grassland and a detached outbuilding that is a simple in form, modest in size and has the traditional appearance of a former agricultural building. This outbuilding and the grassland around it visually merge with the wider site and the surrounding countryside.

The proposal would substantially alter these arrangements. With regard to the dwelling, single-storey flat-roofed additions would wrap around 2 sides; the hipped roof would be replaced by a gable with a large dormer extension; the enlarged dwelling and garage would be linked by a flat-roofed entrance structure; and a roof terrace with glass balustrade would be introduced at first-floor level. The outbuilding would also be extended, altered and converted to provide garages, storage and a kitchen area with a new pergola placed to one side.

The appellant describes the scheme as a high-quality contemporary reinterpretation of the existing dwelling. Reference is made to the variety of styles and materials within Twyford and to the modern timber-clad bungalow at [address] as evidence that contemporary design is well established locally. The Melton Borough Design SPD also notes that a contrasting contemporary approach can be the better solution for larger extensions. I too saw that the village is architecturally varied and note that there is no policy requirement to replicate traditional built forms or styles.

The difficulty here is that the proposal does not achieve a coherent composition even when assessed against the dwelling as altered by the current works. The combination of large flat-roofed extensions, the prominent dormer, linking structures and varied fenestration would result in a cumbersome group of visually competing elements rather than a unified composition. By introducing a relatively large garage to one side of the outbuilding and an overtly domestic feature such as a pergola on the other, the proposal would also detract from the modest scale and traditional shape and appearance of the original agricultural structure. For all these reasons, the proposal would fail to achieve the high-quality design required by Policy D1 of the Melton Borough Local Plan 2011-2036 (LP).

The comparators relied upon by the appellant are within the main body of the settlement. [name] has no uniform vernacular does not mean that any contemporary approach is therefore acceptable; the question under LP Policy D1 is whether the proposal responds appropriately to its own context. This site lies at the edge of the village, where the dwelling and outbuilding are experienced against a semi-rural backdrop and where the relationship between built form and landscape assumes particular importance. The examples cited do not arise in that same context and are therefore not directly comparable with the proposal before me.

The appellant places considerable weight on the fallback position established by the works that could be carried out as PD rather than the original dwelling. I recognise that some works are underway. Whilst no Certificate of Lawfulness has been submitted, I saw that works are underway, and the Council has not provided substantive evidence that the works would be unlawful. Accordingly, I attach moderate weight to the fallback position.

However, the proposal differs in scale, design and in its relationship to the host building from the works that are said to fall within PD rights. In particular, it includes the integration of multiple extensions, additional structures and the expansion of domestic related activity across the site. It could reasonably be described as similar to the proposal before me that must, in any event, be assessed on its own merits. The existence of the fallback position does not alter my assessment of the proposal’s design quality.

I acknowledge that public views of the site are relatively limited, but design quality does not depend on visibility. The aim of LP Policy D1 is to ensure that development responds appropriately to its context regardless of how widely it is seen, and the shortcomings I have identified would remain in any event.

The cumulative bulk of the extensions and alterations, the competing roof forms, and the enlargement and domestication of an ancillary structure would result in a discordant and visually intrusive form of development. The proposal would fail to respect the simple and understated character of the appeal dwelling and the outbuilding, to the detriment of their character and appearance, and that of the local area. Accordingly, the proposal conflicts with LP Policy D1 and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which requires development to be sympathetic to local character and add to the overall quality of the area.

In the absence of a defined settlement boundary for Twyford, the extent to which the site falls within the countryside is a matter of judgement. A previous Inspector, who determined an appeal relating to this site in November 2025, found that the bungalow and its immediately enclosed domestic surroundings formed an established residential curtilage but that the land beyond, including the grassland and detached outbuilding to the east, retained the character of open countryside.

At the time of my site visit, I saw that the appeal dwelling is enclosed to the rear and along one side by established planting, whereas the land to the east remains open in character and merges into the wider holding without any clear demarcation. The detached outbuilding is physically separate from the dwelling and garage and is surrounded by land that reads as part of the wider countryside rather than as part of a domestic garden. Having regard to its character and function, I find that the eastern land retains the character of open countryside rather than forming part of the established residential curtilage of Willowmead.

[name] acknowledge the appellant's submission that LP Policy SS2 is principally concerned with the distribution of growth, its operative wording is not confined to new dwellings. The policy expressly addresses development within and outside settlements and therefore remains relevant to proposals involving physical expansion of development into land that is in the countryside. LP Policy SS2 is therefore engaged in this instance.

LP Policy SS2 restricts development outside settlements to that which is necessary and appropriate in the open countryside. Whilst the supporting text explains the policy's role in directing growth to sustainable locations, the operative wording is not limited to housing numbers or the settlement hierarchy. The policy applies to development proposals generally and therefore applies here.

That conclusion is consistent with the findings of the previous Inspector in 2025. I have considered the additional evidence that was not before that earlier Inspector, including the 2004 planning permission, aerial imagery, ornamental planting, pathways and cultivation, but I do not find that it materially alters the position. Polytunnels and allotment cultivation are more consistent with the smallholding character of the wider holding than with a domestic garden, whilst the ornamental planting is concentrated around the dwelling itself. The aerial imagery shows the eastern land remaining largely open and visually continuous with the surrounding countryside over a prolonged period. I also note that the previous Inspector found that neither the limited public visibility of the intervening land nor the presence of a track connecting the buildings altered the conclusion that the land had historically been agricultural in character.

The appellant argues that the wider landholding forms part of the established residential curtilage. Reliance is placed on the extent of the 2004 planning permission, the Council's administrative practice concerning application boundaries, the presence of domestic features across the site and single ownership. Applying the approach in relevant case law, the relevant question is the character and function of the land itself. The extent of an application site does not determine the planning status of all land within it, nor does single ownership establish a single residential planning unit. The administrative correspondence relied upon illustrates a general practice at a different site and does not establish that the 2004 red line amounted to a formal recognition of the lawful extent of the residential curtilage in this case. Taken together, these matters do not persuade me that the eastern land forms no part of the countryside.

The proposal would not simply remodel or improve the existing dwelling. Through the extension and conversion of the outbuilding, the introduction of associated hardstanding and linking elements, and the increased functional relationship between the various structures on the site, it would disperse residential activity across a broader area of land presently characterised by its relationship with the surrounding countryside. Whilst elements of domestic activity already occur beyond the immediate surroundings of the bungalow, the proposal would intensify and formalise that relationship. The result would be a clear extension of domestic activities beyond the established residential core of the site and an encroachment into the countryside.

I recognise that public views into the site are limited, and that additional planting would partly screen and soften views of the development further over time. However, the domestication of the outbuilding and presently open land through additional hardstanding, domestic structures and intensified residential use would alter its character irrespective of the extent to which those changes could be seen from public vantage points.

I also recognise that the proposal would extend an existing residential presence rather than introduce an entirely new one. However, LP Policy SS2 is engaged, and it applies to the introduction of new built form into the countryside. Even if the area affected were limited to the narrower strips identified by the appellant, those areas contribute to the transition between the established residential curtilage and the wider countryside, and their incorporation would not be without consequence.

The appellant relies upon several benefits: flood resilience measures, improvements to the thermal performance of the dwelling, management of [name], accommodation of underfloor heating infrastructure and a covered connection between the dwelling and garage. [name] recognise those objectives, I am not convinced that they can only be achieved by introducing a development in the manner proposed. I have also considered the appellant's comparison with Green Belt policy. LP Policy SS2 is to be applied according to its own wording however, and that comparison does not alter my conclusions.

Taking all matters into account, I find on the second main issue that the proposal would extend built form and domestic activity beyond the established residential core of the site and into the countryside. The appellant has not demonstrated that such development is necessary and appropriate in the open countryside, and the proposal therefore conflicts with LP Policy SS2.

The environmental improvements the appellant has undertaken and proposes, including the planting of over 500 trees and 500 hedgerow whips, management of the [name] corridor, removal of debris and a reduction in impermeable hardstanding within the flood zones, are benefits to which I attach moderate weight. I have also had regard to the flood resilience measures incorporated within the appeal scheme. These considerations, whether taken individually or cumulatively, do not outweigh the identified harm.

The Parish Council's objection was subsequently withdrawn once it became clear that the concerns raised related to matters outside the scope of the application, and I have attached no weight to it. The appellant has also raised concerns regarding the Council's handling of the application and queried whether a site visit was undertaken by the [name]. These matters do not fall within my remit, which is to determine the appeal on its planning merits.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan when read as a whole. There are no material considerations, including those of the Framework, which indicate that the decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.