Single storey garden room

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 December 2017 by Darren Hendley BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 12th January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P4225/D/17/3184535 Newfield Head Farm, Newfield Head Lane, Milnrow OL16 3QR  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 Mrs S Dosanjh against the decision of Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/00866/HOUS, dated 20 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 14 September 2017.  The development proposed is a single storey garden room. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are a) whether the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) and the development plan policy, b) its effect on the openness of the Green Belt, c) its effect on the character and appearance of the building and the area, and d) if it is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Reasons 3. The appeal property comprises a detached house that has been extended by way of a 2 storey flat roofed extension and a conservatory. The submitted existing drawings show the ground floor of the 2 storey extension to be a garage, although at the time of my site visit, works related to its conversion were underway. Next to this extension is a raised terraced area. The grounds of the property also contain an outbuilding, which is of modern construction. The property is sited in an elevated position over the M62 and land to the west. To the north of the site is a neighbouring property. The vicinity of the site maintains a semi-rural character, despite its proximity to the M62 and Milnrow. Inappropriate Development 4. Paragraph 89 of the Framework states that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate in the Green Belt unless, amongst other exceptions, it involves the extension or alteration of a building provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Appeal Decision APP/P4225/D/17/3184535 2 5. Policy G4 of the Rochdale Metropolitan Borough Council, Rochdale Adopted Core Strategy (2016) (CS) and ‘Saved’ Policy G/D/2 of the Rochdale Unitary Development Plan 2001 – 2016 (2006) (UDP) reflect the Framework as far they reinforce its strong protection to the Green Belt. Policy G4 seeks to restrict development in the Green Belt in line with national planning policy. The policies do not though provide guidance on whether or not an extension or alteration of a building would constitute a disproportionate addition. In this respect, the Council’s ‘Guidelines & Standards for Residential Development SPD’ (2016) SPD sets out that extensions up to a 35% increase in floorspace or volume would not normally be considered to be disproportionate, also including previous extensions. It also sets out that as the characteristics of properties and proposals will vary significantly there may be instances when a 35% increase would be considered disproportionate and other occasions when a greater than 35% increase may not be considered disproportionate. 6. The original building under the Framework constitutes the house that resulted from the conversion of two previous cottages on the site. Plans from the relevant planning permission do not show the 2 storey extension, and as such this forms an addition to the size of the original building. The conservatory replaced outbuildings on the site although, as I have set out above, the site now contains a further outbuilding. 7. It is also apparent that when comparing the plans for the original house to the existing house, further alterations have taken place, including the raised terraced area. The proposal itself would add a further extension to the property, and it would constitute a reasonably sized single storey structure, with a similar floor area to the existing 2 storey extension. 8. Assessing proportionality with regard to the policy guidance which the Framework sets out is principally an objective test based on size. Accordingly, compared to what I consider what would have been the size of the original building, the size of the proposal, in combination with the significant amount of existing extensions and alterations that have taken place, would constitute a disproportionate addition. 9. The dispute between the appellant and the Council over the precise calculations of whether or not the 35% increase in the SPD would be exceeded does not alter my conclusions because the size of the proposal is clearly shown on the submitted plans in relation to the original building to enable me to come to the view that it would constitute a disproportionate addition. The SPD acknowledges that the 35% increase is, however, not fixed as there is the need to have regard to the characteristics of the property and the proposal, which I have fully considered in my decision. 10. Therefore, I conclude the proposal would constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt and, therefore, it would not comply with the Framework, Policy G4 of the CS and ‘Saved’ Policy G/D/2 of the UDP. Openness 11. Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. The proposal would alter the area of land on which it would be sited from one of an open hardstanding area to that which would contain the built form of a single storey structure that would project back from the front of the 2 storey extension to beyond the original elevation of the house. Appeal Decision APP/P4225/D/17/3184535 3 12. In terms of the visual component of openness, the proposal would be of a greater height than the boundary enclosure to the west. With the elevated position of the site in this direction and as the proposal would project forward from the existing house towards this boundary, this would afford it prominence in views in this direction, despite its flat roofed form. Although there is vegetation on this boundary, there is no certainty that the growth of the planting would be sufficient so as to be effective in its screening qualities. 13. I consider that the effect on the openness of the Green Belt, overall, would be moderate. Character and Appearance 14. Due to the amount of extensions and alterations that have already taken place to the house, it does not have an obvious uniformity in terms of its design. There is already a mix of roof types and the flat roofed form of the 2 storey extension is prominent on the site. The siting of this extension, the conservatory and the other alterations also contribute towards the house lacking a particular cohesive form. 15. The flat roofed design of the proposal would be in keeping with the existing house, as far as it would reflect the flat roof of the 2 storey extension. Its single storey scale and bulk would also not significantly imbalance or appear dominant compared to the existing house. It would not unduly disrupt the prevailing character of its semi-rural location. There would be limited visibility from the adjacent neighbouring property, as it would be well set off from the boundary. The further addition of the proposal, with its design and form, would not therefore be unduly visually intrusive. 16. I conclude the proposal would not be unacceptable with regard to the effect on the character and appearance of the building and the area. As such, it would comply with Policies DM1 and P3 of the CS which collectively seek for development to respect its context and maintain character. I also conclude it would comply with design guidance in the Framework, including paragraph 58 which states that development should respond to the local character and reflect the identity of local surroundings. Similarly, I find the proposal would comply with the SPD as it would be in keeping with, and subservient to, the host property. Other Considerations 17. The appellant has submitted evidence concerning the need for the proposal relating to the disability of a family member, who would move into the house, along with his mother. The evidence states that the proposal is required to provide a quiet space in the house for this family member. I have had due regard to this matter and attach significant weight to it. However, whilst I am sympathetic to the need, I am not persuaded that, based on the evidence before me, such a room could not be provided in the existing house given that the house is sizeable with the extensions that have already taken place. 18. I am aware that the Council has queried whether the first floor of the 2 storey extension has planning permission, although in the absence of evidence, I have considered this an existing extension to the property in my deliberations. As the harm I have found to the Green Belt arises from the proposal, this could not be addressed by the removal of permitted development rights for what Appeal Decision APP/P4225/D/17/3184535 4 would concern future development. Whether the proposal would be sited on what would be classed as either the side or front of the existing house does also not alter my conclusions, as I have based my considerations on the site circumstances before me. Conclusion 19. The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, in addition, there would be a moderate loss of openness. Paragraph 88 of the Framework establishes that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. I find that harm would not arise concerning the effect on the character and appearance of the building and the area, but as a development would be expected to achieve this, it only attracts neutral weight. I have set out that the need for the proposal has to be considered against whether the existing house could perform this function. Other considerations which arise do not therefore clearly outweigh the totality of the harm. Consequently, very special circumstances do not exist. The proposal would not, thus, comply with the Framework with regards to Green Belt national policy, Policy G4 of the CS and ‘Saved’ Policy G/D/2 of the UDP. 20. In exercising my function on behalf of a public authority, I am also consciously aware of my duties under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained within the Equality Act 2010, which sets out to eliminate discrimination, harassment and victimisation, advance equality and foster good relations. Disability is a protected characteristic of the PSED. I find that withholding planning permission would not, however, unacceptably conflict with the PSED because it has not been established that the existing dwelling could not fulfil the need arising from the proposal related to the disability. 21. I am also aware of my duties under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 that bestows the right to private and family life and for the home. Article 8 is a qualified right which involves balancing the fundamental rights of the individual against the legitimate interests of other individuals and the wider community and public interest. The protection of the Green Belt is such a legitimate interest and proportionality is a key consideration in the application of Article 8. Having regard to the harm that would arise to the Green Belt, not granting planning permission would be proportionate and necessary. 22. Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Darren Hendley INSPECTOR