Demolition of attached gun room and porch and erection of two storey and single storey extensions and detached garage, alterations to fenestration and removal of chimney (revised scheme)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 September 2017 by Graeme Robbie BA(Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 29 September 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/E2734/D/17/3177375 Keepers Cottage, Pheasantry Track, Rudding Park Home Farm, Follifoot HG3 1DQ  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 The Rudding Park Estate against the decision of Harrogate Borough Council.  The application Ref 6.121.204.M.FUL, dated 10 March 2017, was refused by notice dated 23 May 2017.  The development proposed is the demolition of attached gun room and porch and erection of two storey and single storey extensions and detached garage, alterations to fenestration and removal of chimney (revised scheme). Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of attached gun room and porch and erection of two storey and single storey extensions and detached garage, alterations to fenestration and removal of chimney (revised scheme) at Keepers Cottage, Pheasantry Track, Rudding Park Home Farm, Follifoot HG3 1DQ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 6.121.204.M.FUL, dated 10 March 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1527.S.01; 1527.P06; 1527.S01 rev B; and 1527.P07. 3) Prior to the commencement of the construction of the external walls and roof of the extensions and garage hereby permitted samples of the materials to be used shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in complete accordance with the approved details. 4) Prior to the construction of any development hereby approved the garage and gun room as shown on drawing reference: 1527 P07 shall be demolished in their entirety. Procedural Matters 2. Planning permission1 was granted in February 2017 for the demolition of attached gun room and erection of two storey and single storey extensions and detached garage, alterations to fenestration and removal of chimney at 1 6.121.204.L.FUL – approved 10.02.2017 Appeal Decision APP/E2734/D/17/3177375 2 Keepers Cottage. It is agreed that, other than the dimensions of the single storey element of the extensions, the proposal is otherwise the same as that previously considered by the Council. Main Issues 3. As the site lies within the Green Belt the main issues are:  Whether or not, having regard to the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework, the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt; and  The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing building. Reasons Whether inappropriate 4. Policy SG3 of the Harrogate District Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (CS) states that outside the development and infill limits of identified settlements2, land will be classified as countryside where there will be strict control over new development in accordance with national planning policy protecting the countryside and Green Belt. Section 9 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) attaches great importance to the Green Belt, the essential characteristics of which are its openness and permanence. Paragraph 89 of the Framework goes on to state that the construction of new buildings within the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate. However, a number of exceptions are subsequently provided, of which the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building is one. The Framework does not, however, define what it considers to be disproportionate. 5. CS policy SG3 does not set out detailed guidance in relation to extensions to dwellings within the Green Belt. Nor, I note, do CS policies EQ2 and SG4 or Local Plan (LP) policy H15, all of which the Council refer to in their reason for refusal. The supporting text to LP policy H15 does however advise that in the countryside, including the Green Belt, extensions to the ground floor of dwellings will not be permitted if they exceed 50% of the ground floor area. This, it is stated, is to prevent extensions to dwellings becoming tantamount to a new dwelling, albeit with an exception being if there is clear evidence of need for household occupation. 6. However, the threshold referred to is not stated in the policy, merely the supporting text. Furthermore, both the CS and the LP predate the Framework, and neither can be said to be fully compliant with it, referring in the case of CS policy SG3 to Planning Policy Guidance Note 2: Green Belts and in the supporting text to LP policy H15 to ground floor area rather than size. For these reasons, the weight that I can attach to CS policy SG3 and LP policy H15 is more limited than if these provisions were enshrined in the policy itself. 7. Keepers Cottage is a substantial two storey detached dwelling with a T-shaped footprint. The proposal is for the construction of a two storey extension to its northwest facing elevation, linked to the main dwelling by a two storey glazed 2 As identified by CS policy SG2 Appeal Decision APP/E2734/D/17/3177375 3 element, and a flat roofed single storey extension to the dwelling’s southeast facing elevation. In order to facilitate the two storey extension, it is proposed to demolish an existing outbuilding (known as the ‘Gun Room’) and garage sited just to the northwest of Keepers Cottage. 8. The Council have calculated that the previously approved scheme, referred to above, would result in a 23% increase in floor area and a 35% increase in volume. The appellant does not dispute these calculations, nor are the Council’s calculations in relation to the current proposal disputed. These state that the proposal now before me would result in a 30.4% increase in floor area and a 40% increase in volume. In terms of floor area, the proposed extensions in this instance would also remain below the level advocated in the supporting text to LP policy H15. 9. The Framework does not however define disproportionate and makes no reference to any specific numerical threshold in relation to such. In this respect, my attention has been drawn to an Inspector’s comments in relation to a recent appeal3 elsewhere within the Borough, where it was stated that consideration should extend beyond mathematical calculations and that regard should also be had to matters of scale and massing in any assessment of proportionality. 10. The two storey element of the proposal would add additional height and massing at the north-western end of Keepers Cottage. With regard to the single storey element, this would also add width to the south-eastern side of the dwelling, something that I find would be emphasised by the continuation of the extension’s materials across the ground floor of the existing dwelling’s southwest facing elevation. However, the two storey element would be set a significant distance back from the face of the southwest facing elevation, and also set back from the northeast elevation, whilst the single storey element would be a subservient feature to the dwelling as a whole in terms of its height, whilst maintaining the overall T-shaped form of the existing dwelling. 11. Thus, I find that the proposed extensions would be well-related to the existing dwelling in form, scale and massing, and would have a pleasingly subservient relationship to Keepers Cottage. Whilst the Council’s calculations regarding the increase in footprint and volume are not decisive, they add weight to my conclusions that the proposed extensions would not be disproportionate additions to Keepers Cottage. I therefore consider that the proposal meets the exception set out at the 3rd bullet point of paragraph 89 of the Framework and is therefore not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. 12. I have noted the presence of the previously approved and extant scheme for the extension, albeit with a smaller single storey element than that currently proposed, of Keepers Cottage. However, as I have concluded that the current proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, the terms of the previous approval, whilst providing the appellant with a fall-back position, have not been determinative. Character and appearance 13. Although the Council expressed concerns regarding the proportions and massing of the proposed extensions in relation to the Green Belt assessment, 3 APP/E2734/D/16/3165201 Appeal Decision APP/E2734/D/17/3177375 4 no such reservations are expressed in terms of the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling or upon the surrounding area. The development plan policies referred to by the Council do not expressly prohibit a contemporary approach to design; an approach that has clearly been adopted in this instance in terms of the form and massing of the extensions and the choice of materials. 14. Having considered the evidence presented, and from my observations of Keepers Cottage, there are no compelling reasons that would lead me to reach a different conclusion in this respect. The proposal would be of a high quality and of a proportionate scale that retains subservience to the main dwelling. The removal of the gun room and garage, and replacement with the two storey extension would reduce the outward spread of buildings that the large detached footprint area of the gun room currently creates and result in a well- balanced and proportionate extension to Keepers Cottage that would not cause harm to the character, setting or appearance of either Keepers Cottage, or the surrounding area. There would be no conflict with CS policies EQ2, SG3 or SG4, or with LP policy H15 and the proposal would align with one of the Framework’s core planning principles of always seeking to secure high quality design. Other Matters 15. The Council assess the proposal in terms of its effect on the living conditions of occupiers of the neighbouring dwellings. I note the Council’s conclusions in this respect and I have not been presented with any evidence that would lead me to conclude that the proposal would cause harm in this respect. Conditions 16. I have considered the Council’s list of suggested conditions in light of the advice set out in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. Where necessary, I have amended the wording of the conditions in the interests of precision and conciseness. 17. In addition to the time limit condition, I agree that conditions specifying the approved plans and requiring submission of samples of external materials are necessary and reasonable in the interests of certainty and character and appearance, respectively. A condition requiring the removal of the gun room and garage is necessary in the interests of character and appearance. Conclusion 18. For the reasons set out, and having considered all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Graeme Robbie INSPECTOR