Install PVCu porch entrance and conservatory

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 March 2026 by S Jamieson BA (Hons) MPlan MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 14 May 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002305 Sparrow Barn, Whitacre Lane, Stonnall, Lichfield, Staffordshire WS14 0BZ • 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 Mr M Kowalski against the decision of Lichfield District Council. • The application Ref is 25/01045/FUH. • The development proposed is install PVCu porch entrance and conservatory. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling. Reasons for the Recommendation 4. Sparrow Barn is a former agricultural building set within a cluster of properties that are positioned just off Whitacre Lane. The appeal dwelling is constructed of traditional red brick with a simple pitched roof, finished in slate. The building has a restrained, linear form and the rear elevation displays only a single door and two small windows. Despite its conversion to residential use, the building’s simple form, with limited openings and minimal use of glazing, reflect its agricultural origins and contribute positively to its traditional character and appearance. 5. The Council’s Rural Buildings Supplementary Planning Document (2015) (SPD) sets out that the character of a rural building is derived from its original function, and every effort should be made to retain the original simplicity of scale and form and to alter the building as little as possible. With this in mind, it suggests that standard ‘off the peg’ style UPVC windows will not be acceptable. 6. Due to its overall width and projection beyond the rear elevation of the appeal property, the proposed development would appear as a disproportionate addition that would fail to assimilate acceptably with the modest scale and simple form of its host. This would be exacerbated by the excessive use of glazing and UPVC frames which, despite matching the existing fenestration to some extent, would appear Appeal Decision 6002305 2 incongruous, dominating the host building and unacceptably diluting the ability to appreciate its former agricultural use. The proposal would therefore conflict with the aims of the SPD. While the extension would be positioned to the rear of the dwelling, reduced visibility does not negate the need for good design. In any event, Sparrow Barn’s rear elevation is still clearly perceptible from Whitacre Lane and, despite infrequent traffic, the proposed conservatory and porch would be readily apparent to passersby, as well as to neighbouring occupiers who share the access and parking area. 7. Consequently, the proposed development would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the appeal dwelling. It would therefore fail to accord with Core Policy 3 and Policy BE1 of the Lichfield District Local Plan Strategy (2015) which require that developments protect and enhance the character and distinctiveness of Lichfield District and its settlements and that developments have a positive impact on, amongst other things, the built vernacular, including extensions and alterations. For the same reasons, it would also conflict with the design guidance contained in the Council’s Design Code Supplementary Planning Document (2024) as well as the good design objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework. Other Matters 8. The appeal scheme might provide a more functional and sustainable living space for the appellant. There would also be economic benefits associated with the extension’s construction. Even so, given the modest scale of what is proposed, such benefits would be limited and would not justify a development that would be harmful. Similarly, the lack of objections and the absence of harm to the Green Belt and neighbouring living conditions, including traffic, noise and light, are not benefits as such and would not lead me to a different conclusion on the appeal scheme. 9. I do not have the full details of the other examples of conservatories and other domestic structures in the wider area before me. From what I have, they are not comparable to residential extensions to former agricultural buildings. Therefore, and despite some variation in the surrounding built form, the cited examples do not justify the harm I have identified. Conclusion and Recommendation 10. For the reasons given above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance. I therefore recommend the appeal is dismissed. S Jamieson APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 11. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR