Erection of single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 June 2023 by Ben Plenty BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11th July 2023 Appeal Ref: APP/C3240/D/23/3315905 1 Broomfield Barn, Allscott, TELFORD TF6 5EQ • 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 A & J Taylor against the decision of Telford and Wrekin Council. • The application Ref TWC/2022/0574, dated 1 July 2022, was refused by notice dated 6 December 2022. • The development proposed is the erection of single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single storey rear extension at 1 Broomfield Barn, TELFORD TF6 5EQ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref TWC/2022/0574, dated 1 July 2022, and the plans submitted with it, 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: 3208/1 Location and Block Plan, 3208/5a Proposed Elevations and 3208/4a Proposed Floor Plan. 3) Development shall not take place until details of types and colours of all external materials, including hard surfacing have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The samples required shall include the erection of a sample panel of brickwork, including mortar, of at least 1 metre square, on site. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4) Development shall not take place until a detailed specification and drawings, including sections of the proposed window and glass doors at a scale of 1:10 together with details of proposed finishes, 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 Matters 2. Amended plans were submitted during the application consideration process. These removed a central flat roof section of roof following the Council’s concerns that this would result in overlooking. The Appellant has indicated that they would prefer me to consider the original design of the scheme. However, it is not the purpose of the appeal process to engage in the consideration of Appeal Decision APP/C3240/D/23/3315905 2 alternatives. I must consider the appeal proposal on the basis of the plans which informed the Council’s reasons for refusal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed extension on the character and appearance of the host dwelling, as a non-designated heritage asset, and on the surrounding area. Reasons 4. The host dwelling is a converted barn. It is a two-storey structure of simple linear form, connected to a neighbouring converted barn at its midpoint. The group of connected buildings are non-designated heritage assets comprising a traditional historic farmstead. The significance of the barn seems to derive from its historic purpose as an agricultural structure and its traditional design. 5. The barn, the subject of this appeal, gained planning approval to be converted in 2011. This was subject to a condition that removed Permitted Development Rights, for extensions and alterations, to preserve its agricultural character and appearance. The proposed addition would extend the building with a design that would follow the width and roof design of the host dwelling. Whilst having a domestic scale, it would follow the linear form of the existing barn. It would also be subordinate in scale and thus relate well to the character of the existing farmstead group. As such, the overall form and design of the proposal would complement the existing building and be in proportion with its scale, resulting in a limited extension of its footprint. It would also have no material effect on the setting of 2 Broomfield Barn. 6. The first-floor window, on the end elevation, is the opening of the former barn’s granary doorway. This has been sympathetically retained and repurposed as a window opening. The proposal would require this to be infilled and this feature would be lost. This would erode a historic feature of the barn. This would result in harm, albeit limited, to the character of the building. 7. In considering the effect of development on a non-designated heritage asset the Framework requires a balance judgement to be applied, having regard to the scale of any harm or loss, and the significance of the heritage asset. As the proposed extension would complement the existing building in terms of design, the limited harm identified would be of insufficient magnitude to result, on balance, in an unacceptable alteration to the building. 8. As a result, the proposed extension would complement the character and appearance of the barn and its setting within the surrounding area. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with policies BE1 and BE2 of the Telford and Wrekin Local Plan [2018] and the Framework. These seek, among other matters, for development to not substantially alter the character of the building and to respect and respond positively to its context. Other Matters 9. The Council considers that the public benefits conveyed by the proposed scheme would not outweigh its identified ‘less than substantial harm’. However, the need to balance public benefits against harm is not a test outlined in the Framework for non-designated heritage assets. Moreover, considerations of Appeal Decision APP/C3240/D/23/3315905 3 ‘optimum viable use’, in connection with heritage assets, are only required in the Framework when assessing the suitability of new dwellings. Conditions 10. It is necessary to apply conditions in connection with a commencement period and list the approved plans to accord with the Planning Practice Guidance. It is also necessary for materials and door/window details to be specified and agreed by the Council prior to first use. A condition suggested by the Council, with respect to adherence with advice from the fire authority, would not be precise and would be unnecessary for the scheme to be acceptable in planning terms. Conclusion 11. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted subject to the attached conditions. Ben Plenty INSPECTOR