Side facing single storey extension and installation of additional window at first floor level on south facing elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 June 2019 by David Storrie DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/D/19/3226897 Sunnybrook Barn South, Catchpenny Lane, Lower Withington, Macclesfield, Cheshire, SK11 9DG • 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 Mrs D Metcalfe against the decision of Cheshire East Borough Council. • The application Ref 18/5741M, dated 16 November 2018, was refused by notice dated 22 February 2019. • The development proposed is a side facing single storey extension and installation of additional window at first floor level on south facing elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a side facing single storey extension and installation of additional window at first floor level on south facing elevation at Sunnybrook Barn South, Catchpenny Lane, Lower Withington, Macclesfield, Cheshire, SK11 9DG in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/5741M, dated 16 November 2018, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) No development involving the use of any facing or roofing materials shall take place until details or samples of the materials to be used in the construction of external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Preliminary Matter 2. The reason for refusal only relates to the single storey extension element of the proposal and there are no objections from the Council to the proposed additional window at first floor level of the front elevation. I agree that the scale and design of the proposed window is acceptable. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the original barn with regard to its scale, massing and proximity to the adjacent cartlodge. Appeal Decision APP/R0660/D/19/3226897 2 Reasons 4. The appeal site forms part of a former barn that was converted into two dwellings in 2016. The site is set some distance back from the public highway. The proposed extension would be a lean-to style constructed on the side elevation, set back from the main front wall. It would be mainly glazed along with matching brickwork and a natural blue slate roof. It would project from the side of the building a similar distance to an existing side extension on the adjoining property and its height would be comparable too. Given its location, scale and design I consider that it would be seen as a subordinate addition to the property. 5. The Council have referred to guidance from Historic England on adapting traditional farm buildings that, amongst other things, advises that the construction of extensions can compromise the character and setting of a farm building. It also advises that any extensions should be subordinate in scale and relate to the massing and character of the existing farmstead group. Whilst I have not been provided with this guidance and note that it is not adopted planning guidance, I have already concluded that the extension would be subordinate to the host building. For these reasons I give this limited weight in my considerations. 6. The height of the proposed extension would be similar to the height of an existing side projection to the adjoining neighbouring property that was part of the original barn. The roof design of the proposed extension would incorporate a cut away in the roof in order to retain an existing first floor bedroom window. Rather than appearing awkward or incongruous, I consider that this feature would add interest and be more in keeping with the random features and openings that can often be seen in traditional farm buildings, where openings are designed for function rather than architecture. 7. Whilst the extension would bring the building closer to a cartlodge building, being used as a garage, there would still be a reasonable gap between the two buildings, and they would be seen as two separate structures with very different functions. For this reason, I do not consider that this relationship would be harmful to the character of the original barn or the character and appearance of the area. Views into the site from public vantage points are limited given the distance of the site from the road and boundary treatment around the site. 8. Taking all the above into account I consider that the proposed development would not harm the character or appearance of the original barn or the rural character of the wider area. As such, it would conform with Policies SE1 and SD 2 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy (2017) and saved policy GC12 of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan (2004) that, amongst other things, seek to ensure that all developments provide innovative and creative design solutions that are appropriate to the local context and contribute to an area’s character and identity and also that any additions should not result in the house’s appearance being materially altered, or adversely affect the character of the countryside. 9. It would also comply with advice in chapter 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 that, amongst other things, seek to ensure that developments are sympathetic to local character and history, including the surrounding built environment and that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development. Appeal Decision APP/R0660/D/19/3226897 3 Conditions 10. In addition to the standard condition which limits the lifespan of the planning permission I have also imposed a condition requiring samples of the proposed external surfaces of the building to be submitted for approval before any work commences on the external surfaces of the building to ensure a satisfactory appearance. Conclusion 11. I therefore conclude that, subject to the above conditions, and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed. David Storrie INSPECTOR