Garden room and link building

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4th July 2018 by Alison Roland BSc DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 24 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M9496/D/18/3201699 Walker Edge Farm, Walker Edge, Sheffield, S36 4ZA.  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 R Franks against the decision of the Peak District National Park Authority.  The application Ref: NP/S/1217/1260, dated 11 January 0217, was refused by Notice dated 8 February 2018.  The development proposed is garden room and link building. Procedural Matter 1. The date of the application cited in the header above is derived from the planning application form and is clearly an error. Both the Decision Notice and appeal form give the date of the application as 12 December 2017 and I have therefore referenced this in my decision below. Decision 2. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for garden room and link building at Walker Edge Farm, Walker Edge, Sheffield, S36 4ZA, in accordance with the terms of the application Ref: NP/S/1217/1260 dated 12 December 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drg No 01: Location Plan; Drg No 02: Plan + views showing location of unbuilt garage; Drg No 03A: Plan showing proposed extension; Drg No 04A: Aerial views; Drg No 05A: Perspective views; Drg No 06A: Perspective views; Drg No 07A: West elevation; Drg No 08A: South elevation; Drg No 09A: East elevation; Drg No 558/01: Site Plan and Elevations; Drg No 558/02: Floor Plans. 3) All new stonework shall be in natural gritstone faced, coursed and pointed to match the existing stonework. 4) The roof shall be clad in natural blue slate to match existing. 5) The windows and doors shall be of timber. Appeal Decision APP/M9496/D/18/3201699 2 6) The windows and doors shall be recessed at least 150mm from the external face of the stonework. 7) Rainwater goods shall be cast metal painted black and fixed directly to the stonework on rise and fall brackets without the use of fascia; there shall be no projecting or exposed rafters. 8) The roof verges shall be flush cement pointed, with no barge boards or projecting timberwork. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this appeal is the im plications of the proposal for the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 4. The appeal site comprises a detached two storey traditional gritstone house with rebuilt former barn attached to the rear. The building occupies a prominent roadside position amidst elevated moorland and pastureland of considerable scenic quality. The proposal would see the gable of the barn furthest from the road extended to form a garden room with an extended link to the house. The extension would incorporate contemporary elevational treatment including two tall slot windows in the west elevation and a large glazed opening in the southern gable with oak shuttering. 5. Several elements of the proposal would not follow the advice in the Peak District National Park Authority Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2007) (DG), the Alterations and Extensions Detailed Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (July 2014) (DDG) and the Building Design Guide (1987) (BDG). These include the large expanse of glazing in the gable, the fact it would not have an obvious subordinate relationship to the host barn and the formality of the slot windows in the west elevation. Despite this, I nonetheless consider the proposal would harmonise well with the host property and wider setting in which it sits for the following reasons. 6. Firstly, one of the characteristics of building traditions in the area is the horizontality of form, a factor exhibited in this particular property with the linear proportions of the barn greatly exceeding that of the host dwelling. The proposal would accentuate this a little further, but not to the extent it would appear uncharacteristic. In this respect, I draw on the appellant’s evidence which cites several examples of farm buildings in the locality with a strong linear form, including Yew Tree Farm Bolsterstone which I viewed at my visit. A design which attempted to render the extension as an obvious addition to the barn, would in this particular context appear contrived and over-elaborate. The proposal would echo the simple robust proportions and clean lines of the existing barn. 7. Secondly, the tall slot windows would reflect the formality and spacing of the other windows in the west elevation; the fact is that this rebuilt barn already features a contemporary treatment to its fenestration and the proposal would amount to more of the same. This is not a traditional unaltered barn where this type of approach might otherwise be inappropriate. Appeal Decision APP/M9496/D/18/3201699 3 8. Thirdly, the glazed opening (with shuttering), is orientated on the south elevation where it would not be evident from the roadside. I accept it would be seen from the public access land which surrounds the property. However, views would be at a considerable distance and from the south, the property occupies a visually discrete location tucked down the slope in the land with the gable partially screened by trees. Given this, I consider the glazing in the gable would scarcely be evident to other than the informed observer and it would not appear as a conspicuous addition. Whether in the closed or open position, the shuttering would also not register as an obtrusive feature. It would be more prominent in the open position, but views from the west and south would be at some distance and it would not draw the eye. 9. The proposal would partially obscure views of the rear of the existing house on the approach from the west, but the property already features a subordinate relationship relative to the much larger massing of the attached barn and the proposal would merely accentuate this existing theme and would not appear at all out of the ordinary. The visual distinction between the original house and barn, whilst altered, would be maintained. 10.For these reasons, despite the conflict with the advice in the DG, DDG and BDG, I conclude on the main issue that the proposal would integrate comfortably with the host property and wider character and appearance of the area. I thus find no conflict with Policies GSP1 and GSP3 of the Peak District National Park Local Development Framework Core Strategy Development Plan Document (October 2011), saved Policies LC4 and LH4 of the Peak District National Park Local Plan (March 2001), or the advice in the Framework. These seek to ensure that development is of a high standard of design which is consistent with the Park’s legal purposes and duty, respects and conserves valued characteristics of sites and buildings and that extensions to dwellings do not detract from the character or appearance of the original building. However, I find that Policy LC8 of the latter document which relates to the conversion of buildings of historic or vernacular merit is not relevant to the appeal. 11.In coming to this view, I have had regard to the advice at paragraph 115 of the Framework which requires me to give great weight to conserving the landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, which have the highest status of protection. 12.In addition to the standard condition relating to the time limit for the commencement of development, a condition confining the approval to specified plans is necessary for certainty. Conditions dealing with the details of the external materials, windows and door treatment, rainwater goods and verge treatment are all necessary to secure a satisfactory appearance, having regard to the first statutory purpose of National Park Designation. ALISON ROLAND INSPECTOR