Two storey side extension to the main dwelling. External materials to match existing. The extension roof will be set slightly lower than that of the host dwelling and the external wall recessed to show that it is subservient to the original property

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 January 2026 by Mr R Walker BA HONS DIPTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001290 Abbott Farm, Doehole Lane, Brackenfield DE55 6DB • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Robert Abbott against the decision of North East Derbyshire District Council. • The application Ref is 25/00543/FLH. • The development proposed was originally described as the proposal is for a two storey side extension to the main dwelling. External materials to match existing. The extension roof will be set slightly lower than that of the host dwelling and the external wall recessed to show that it is subservient to the original property. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effects of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons 3. The appeal premises is a detached two storey dwelling located at the entrance to a farm in the countryside. Despite extensions, the original house’s modest size, linear plan form, simple vernacular and traditional construction techniques and materials still contribute positively to the character and appearance of the countryside as a building typically found on working farms. This is particularly evident when viewed from the roadside. 4. Taken together with the existing extensions, the proposals would subsume much of the original house, significantly altering its original scale and character as a modest robust traditional rural dwelling. This would be evident in public views along the road and in private views from within the site. Whilst there is roadside vegetation, its location relative to the proposed extension, and the presence of overhanging branches, is such that I am not convinced that the vegetation can be relied upon to screen the extension in the long term. Nor would it alter my findings in relation to private views which would still incrementally erode the character of the original host property. 5. The appellant has questioned the volumetric and special justification approach adopted by the Council for extensions to dwellings in the countryside. However, whilst I have had regard to the calculations, this has not been determinative in isolation to my assessment. The resulting building would still clearly be seen as a single dwelling, and there are features of the design, such as the materials and the step down from the ridge, and step in from the front and rear elevations, which Appeal Decision 6001290 2 seek to respond positively to the host property. Moreover, the proposal would be located wholly within the garden of the house. However, this does not overcome my concerns regarding the resulting harmful impact to the character and appearance of the surrounding area, from the significant change in the scale and character of the original dwelling. 6. To conclude, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. As such, I find conflict with the requirements of Policies SS9, LC5, SDC3 and SDCC12 of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan, Policies AP2 and 11 of the Ashover Neighbourhood Plan and paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework, when taken together and in so far as they relate to this main issue. These say, amongst other things, that proposals for development will only be permitted provided that they respond positively to local character and context to preserve and, where possible, enhance the quality and local identity of existing communities and their surroundings. 7. The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. 8. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed. Mr R Walker INSPECTOR