Extension to existing outbuilding to provide ancillary residential accommodation and rationalise access to upper parts

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 November 2017 by D J Board BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 12th December 2017. Appeal Ref: APP/W3520/D/17/3184455 2 Hare and Hounds Corner, Hemingstone, IP6 9RW  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 Martin Howells against the decision of Mid Suffolk District Council.  The application Ref DC/17/02777, dated 18 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 12 September 2017.  The development proposed is extension to existing outbuilding to provide ancillary residential accommodation and rationalise access to upper parts. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the rural area, having regard to the Council’s policies for development in the countryside. Reasons 3. No 2 Hare and Hounds Corner is one of a pair of semi detached dwellings. The property has an extensive area of land associated with it. The appeal building is located to the rear of the property. It has a frontage to the B1078. There is no dispute that this existing building is used as an annexe. The appeal scheme proposes an extension to the existing building to form a hallway and additional bedroom and resolve the stair arrangement. 4. The site is located within the countryside for the purposes of the application of planning policy. Policies CS1 and CS2 of the Mid Suffolk Core Strategy (CS) refer to the Council’s settlement hierarchy and strategy for development in the countryside. In particular CS2 seek to restrict development in the countryside to defined categories. The new addition would not fall within any of the categories. I appreciate that this is an existing building. However, the policy makes no provision for the further extension of these buildings. Further as this is an annex the scheme would not in my view benefit from the provision for the ‘extension of dwellings’. 5. The extension would be built in the same style as the existing building and would be of a similar scale. Nevertheless, it would increase the footprint of the building and increase the provision of accommodation to three bedrooms. I Appeal Decision APP/W3520/D/17/3184455 2 understand that since the previous application was refused1 and appeal dismissed2 that the appellant has sought to reduce the amount of the extension. However, by the appellant’s own admission the extension would be an increase of about a third. In addition it would be over two stories and have a large gable end. Therefore, overall, the completed building would not appear obviously ancillary to the main dwelling. This would be compounded by its position relative to the main dwelling. This distance and the appearance of the addition would make it visually intrusive when seen from Ashbocking Road and the B1078. 6. I therefore conclude that the scheme would harm the character and appearance of the rural area and would be in conflict with the Council’s policies for development in the countryside. It would also be in conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Conclusion 7. For the above reasons and having regard to all other matters raised I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. D J Board INSPECTOR 1 LPA Ref 3919/16 2 APP/W3520/D/16/3166040