Single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 March 2019 by Mark Caine BSc (Hons) MTPL MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26th June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/P2365/D/19/3221645 4 Heskin Hall Court, Ormskirk, L39 1LT • 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 & Mrs Stevens against the decision of West Lancashire Borough Council. • The application Ref 2018/1025/FUL, dated 1 October 2018, was refused by notice dated 26 November 2018. • The development proposed is a single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matter 2. Although the planning application form describes the proposed development as ‘Proposed Rear Elevation’, the decision notice issued by the Council describes it as a ‘Single storey rear extension’. From the submitted plans and the other evidence, this is a more accurate description of the development proposed and I note that the appellant has also adopted this form of words on the appeal form. I have, therefore, used this description for the purposes of the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal building. Reasons 4. The appeal relates to a traditional, red brick, former agricultural building that has been converted for residential use. Other than for two existing single-storey extensions and some white painted brickwork it does not appear to have been externally altered or added to since its conversion and retains much of its traditional agricultural character. 5. The appeal building is not a Listed Building, located in a conservation area, or to my knowledge identified on any local list of non-designated heritage assets. However, it has many defining characteristics of a former threshing barn, which include the barn door openings within its front and rear elevations. These are attractive attributes that positively contribute to the traditional agricultural character of the building and are worthy of preservation. Appeal Decision APP/P2365/D/19/3221645 2 6. I recognise that the proposal would avoid a ‘pastiche’ through its light, predominantly glazed contemporary design. It would also sit comfortably within the large garden area, and in isolation, could be considered to be of a subservient size and scale to the original building. Along with the proposed extension the removal of the timber cladding and use of glazing to the rear barn door opening would also provide a differential contrast to the existing building. 7. Nonetheless, the timber clad soffits and grey zinc roofing would extend across the original rear barn door opening. This opening has been altered during the earlier conversion of the building to residential use but it remains a strong defining characteristic of the building as a whole, illustrating its agricultural past. The truncation of this opening would serve to draw the eye and increase the prominence of the proposal when seen against the backdrop of the more traditional building. The proposal would not be visible from the front of the property, the approach into the courtyard or along some parts of Heskin Lane. However, it would be readily apparent from the neighbouring garden area of 3 Heskin Hall Court and the first-floor windows of several houses in the vicinity. 8. I appreciate that the brickwork of the doorway would be exposed internally and be enjoyed from within the new extension and existing building. I am also mindful that the appellants consider that the ground floor glazed partition, rooflight, and new bedroom window would improve the legibility of the front and rear barn door openings. However, it would also be reasonable to expect domestic furnishings, such as the dining table shown in the submitted plans, to be located within the proposed extension. Due to the highly transparent structural glazing it is likely that these furnishings would also be visible from outside the extension. 9. In light of these factors it is my view that the combination of the proposed extension and potential internal furnishings would substantially conceal the important barn door opening. I appreciate that design is a subjective matter, however, for the reasons provided above I consider that the proposal would introduce an alien feature of that would be markedly out of keeping with the traditional agricultural characteristics of the original building. 10. It has been put to me that the proposal would comply with Historic England’s ‘General Principles of Altering an Older House’ and that the proposal would not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt or harm the openness of it. I am also mindful of the needs of the appellants’ growing family and accept that the proposal would not cause unacceptable overshadowing to the occupiers of neighbouring properties or harm residential amenity. However, these factors do not overcome or outweigh the significant harm that I have identified above. 11. I therefore find that the proposal would have a significantly harmful effect on the character and appearance of the appeal building. As such it would conflict with the aims of Policy GN3 of the West Lancashire Local Plan, 2012-2027, Development Plan Document 2013, and advice contained in the West Lancashire District Council Supplementary Planning Document Design Guide 2008. Amongst other matters, these seek to ensure that proposals for development compliment or enhance any attractive attributes within its surroundings through sensitive design, including appropriate siting, materials and built form. Appeal Decision APP/P2365/D/19/3221645 3 Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Mark Caine INSPECTOR