Remodelling of dwelling replacing existing garage and proposed rear annexe

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 December 2017 by L Fleming BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 22nd December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/K0235/D/17/3184145 6a Green End, Renhold, Bedford, MK41 0LL  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 K Sweeney against the decision of Bedford Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/01466/FUL, dated 18 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 11 August 2017.  The development proposed is remodelling of dwelling replacing existing garage and proposed rear annexe. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for remodelling of dwelling replacing existing garage and proposed rear annexe at 6a Green End, Renhold, Bedford, MK41 0LL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/01466/FUL, dated 18 May 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: Location Plan Drawing No 15-131- 6000, Location Plan Drawing No 15-131-4000 E, Block Plan Drawing No 15-131-3000 G, Block Plan Drawing No 15-131-2000, Elevations Drawing No 15-131-5000, Elevations Drawing No 15-131-3040, Plan Drawing No 15-131-3010 B, Existing Elevations Drawing No 15-131-1001, Plan Drawing No 15-131-3030 D, Existing Plan Drawing No 15-131-1000 and Roof Plans Drawing No 15-131-Roof Plans. 3) No development shall take place until full particulars of the external materials to be used (to include walls, roof, doors, windows and external gutters and pipework) have been provided for inspection (on site where possible) and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details and particulars. Main Issues 2. The main issues are the effect of the proposed development on the:  character and appearance of the area bearing in mind it would be within the settings of the grade II listed 6, 8 and 10 Green End; Appeal Decision APP/K0235/D/17/3184145 2  living conditions of the occupants of No 4 Green End (No 4) with particular regard to outlook and light. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal property is a pitched roof detached one and half storey dwelling on the north side of Green End, a residential street characterised by dwellings of a variety of styles and ages with space between buildings set in reasonably sized plots with mature trees and landscaping. Thus the area has a varied, verdant and relatively spacious character and appearance. 4. To the east of the appeal site are the grade II listed 6 & 8 and 10 Green End, a small group of traditional cottages informally arranged with thatched roofs (although No 6 Green End is tiled). The listed buildings are colour washed rough cast over timber frame construction and have pleasant traditional architectural detailing including eyebrow dormers. In my view, the significance of the grade II listed 6, 8 and 10 Green End derives from their traditional architectural detailing and finish and informal layout. 5. I acknowledge the remodelled dwelling would be larger than the existing dwelling. I also note an additional bulk of development would be introduced at upper storey level into the space between the appeal dwelling and the grade II listed 6, 8 & 10 Green End. 6. However, the remodelled dwelling would be the same height as the existing dwelling and would not extend any closer to the road. Furthermore, there would be significant space above the neighbouring garages of No 8 Green End and between the main west facing elevations of Nos 6 and 8 Green End and the proposed side elevation. Moreover, the proposed remodelled dwelling would have a pitched roof which would slope away from the grade II listed 6, 8 and 10 Green End and the remodelled dwelling would be of a style, size and finish which would match other dwellings in the area. 7. For these reasons I find the proposed remodelled dwelling would blend into its setting such that it would not harm the varied character and appearance of the area and the settings and significance of the grade II listed 6, 8 and 10 Green End would be preserved. 8. Turning my attention to the proposed annexe. This would be positioned towards the end of a relatively long rear garden. Sufficient garden would remain and it would be finished to match other buildings nearby. Furthermore, its visual impact would be softened by trees and shrubs along the plot boundaries and even though the proposed annexe would be outside of the defined Settlement Policy Area, the Council’s report states it would be within the residential curtilage and there is no substantive evidence before me which suggests the proposed building is in conflict with any countryside protection policies. 9. Due to its scale and positioning the proposed annexe would also not harm the settings of the grade II listed 6, 8 and 10 Green End. Thus, the proposed annexe would not harm the character and appearance of the area or the settings of the grade II listed 6, 8 and 10 Green End would be preserved. Appeal Decision APP/K0235/D/17/3184145 3 10. For these reasons, I find the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area and the settings and significance of the listed buildings would be preserved. It would therefore accord with saved Policies BE21 and BE30 of the Bedford Borough Local Plan (2002) (LP) and Policies CP21 and CP23 of the Bedford Development Framework Core Strategy and Rural Issues Plan (2008) (CS), which taken together, seek to achieve good design, safeguard heritage assets and ensure that new development positively responds to the character of an area. For the same reasons it would also accord with the good design aims of the Bedford Borough Council Design Guidance Residential Extensions, New Dwellings and Small Infill Developments (2000) (DG). Living conditions 11. No 4 has a side window serving a bedroom on its elevation facing the appeal site. This currently faces a boundary fence, planting, the side elevation of the existing garage and the main roof slope of the existing appeal dwelling. 12. I acknowledge the pitched roof sloping away from No 4 would be replaced with a two storey elevation. However, the proposed remodelled dwelling would not be taller and would not be positioned any further forward of the front elevation of No 4 than the existing dwelling. Furthermore, the proposed remodelled dwelling would be set off the shared boundary and No 4 also sits a reasonable distance from the shared boundary with the appeal site, leaving a reasonable separation distance between the properties. 13. I acknowledge the proposed extension would be in breach of the 25 degree guideline set out in the DG. However, in this case given the existing relationship between No 4 and the appeal dwelling and the separation distance between the proposed remodelled dwelling and No 4, I find the proposal would have a negligible impact on light enjoyed through the bedroom window of No 4 which faces the appeal site. Furthermore, the outlook from this window is mainly onto the boundary treatment and would be mainly unaltered with oblique views towards Green End retained. 14. For these reasons I find the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupiers of No 4 with particular regard to outlook and light. The proposal would therefore accord with saved Policy BE30 of the LP and Policy CP21 of the CS, which taken together, seek to ensure good design and that new development does not give rise to adverse impacts on quality of life and protect the amenities of residents living nearby. Other Matters 15. I have noted the concerns with regard to inadequate parking provision. However, the plans show space for at least three off street car parking spaces with space retained for a vehicle to be able to turn. Thus, even if the proposed annexe generated a demand for parking, parking is mainly unrestricted on streets nearby and there is no substantive evidence before me which demonstrates any demand for parking not met off street could not be met on street safely. 16. I have also noted the concerns with regard to construction waste management and that burning such waste on site could have implications for the neighbouring properties particularly thatched roofs. However, there is no Appeal Decision APP/K0235/D/17/3184145 4 substantive evidence before me which demonstrates there would be a significant risk of waste being burnt on the site and should this become a nuisance appropriate action could be taken through environmental protection regulations. Conditions 17. The conditions imposed are those which have been suggested by the Council. In addition to the standard timescale condition, I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty. I have also imposed a condition which requires the materials to be agreed in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 18. For the reasons set out above the proposed development accords with the development plan and thus, having had regard to all other matters raised the appeal should be allowed. L Fleming INSPECTOR