Construction of rear single storey extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 September 2016 by Helen Hockenhull BA(Hons) B.Pl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 12 October 2016 Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/D/16/R0660/D/16/3154716 The Haybarn, Eaton Road, Wettenhall CW7 4HJ  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr P Owen against the decision of Cheshire East Council.  The application Ref 16/1788N, dated 12 April 2016, was refused by notice dated 1 July 2016.  The development proposed is the construction of rear single storey extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue in this case is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the building. Reasons 3. The appeal site lies in the open countryside and forms a converted barn located within a small complex of other former barns and agricultural buildings converted to residential use. It is proposed to construct a single storey sun room wrapping around the corner of the property. 4. Saved Policy BE2 of the Crewe and Nantwich Adopted Replacement Local Plan 2011 seeks to achieve a high standard of design respecting the pattern, character and form of the surroundings. Policies SE1 and SD2 of the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy Submission Version (2014) seek the same objectives. 5. The Council has provided evidence that the original conversion of the host building was designed to reflect its rural character, making the best use of the form of the building and using existing openings. Whilst I acknowledge the appellant is trying to achieve a sunny aspect at all times of the day, the siting, form and design of the proposed extension would not replicate what would normally be expected on a typical rural building. It would therefore not reflect the buildings original rural function and character. 6. I acknowledge that the extension would be constructed in materials to match the existing barn and would not affect the front elevation of the building. However the extension would be visible from Eaton Road as the site is Appeal Decision APP/R0660/D/16/R0660/D/16/3154716 2 approached from a northerly direction, adversely affecting the visual appearance and character of the barn complex. 7. I note the appellant’s comment that the rear of the property where the extension is proposed does not form an original part of the building. However whilst this may be so, it has been designed to appear as part of the original building. 8. The appellant has questioned the application of emerging Cheshire East Local Plan Policies SE1 and SD2 to the appeal proposal, as he considers that they have greater relevance to larger residential developments. These policies aim to achieve a high quality of design in all developments. Paragraph 13.10 of the supporting text to Policy SE1 refers to rural areas and the need to pay particular attention to landscape character, the local vernacular and the characteristics of the locality. I therefore consider that these policies are relevant to the appeal case. They are generally consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in particular paragraph 17 which seeks to secure high quality design. 9. The appellant has made reference to Policy RES11 of the Crewe and Nantwich Adopted Replacement Local Plan 2011which states that in the open countryside the original dwelling must remain as the dominant element with the extension subordinate to it. He has also referred to Policy PG5 of the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan which allows extensions to existing dwellings in the open countryside where the extension is not disproportionate to the original dwelling. I note that the proposed single storey extension would involve around a 14% increase in floor area so that it would be subordinate to the original dwelling. However the development must also be considered against other relevant policies of the development plan, such as the design policies referred to above. 10. In conclusion I consider that the appeal proposal would harm the character and appearance of the existing rural building. It would be contrary to Saved Policy BE1 of the Crewe and Nantwich Adopted Replacement Local Plan 2011 and Policies SE1 and SD2 of the emerging Cheshire East Local Plan. 11. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I dismiss this appeal. Helen Hockenhull INSPECTOR