Two storey side extension and additional opening to the principal elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 February 2018 by Gareth Wildgoose BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/X4725/D/17/3190991 Red Croft (Land adjacent to), Darning Lane, Thorpe Audlin, Pontefract WF8 3HB  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 A Smith against the decision of City of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council.  The application Ref 17/01753/FUL, dated 5 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 21 September 2017.  The development proposed is “two storey side extension and additional opening to the principal elevation”. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two storey side extension and additional opening to the principal elevation at Red Croft (Land adjacent to), Darning Lane, Thorpe Audlin, Pontefract WF8 3HB in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/01753/FUL, dated 5 July 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: 2017-69-01 Rev E; 2017-69-02 Rev D; 2017-69-03 Rev E; 2017-69-04 Rev D & 2017-69-05 Rev D. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Application for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr A Smith against City of Wakefield Metropolitan District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Procedural Matters 3. The description of development provided by the application form was subsequently amended by the parties. The description of development provided in the appellant’s appeal form reflects the proposal within the plans upon which the Council made its decision and therefore, I adopt it accordingly. In that respect, although the Council issued a split decision, it is necessary that I consider the whole proposal as part of this appeal. Appeal Decision APP/X4725/D/17/3190991 2 Main Issues 4. The main issues of this appeal are:  Whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the development plan, including the effect on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it, and;  The effect on the character and appearance of the existing property and the area. Reasons Whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt 5. The appeal site lies adjacent to Darning Lane within the Green Belt. The two- storey semi-detached dwelling is set back from the road with other land and buildings nearby including a detached outbuilding and a stable block. Based upon the evidence before me, Red Croft was originally a detached dwelling that had been extended and included an adjoining residential annexe. However, Red Croft and the annexe were subsequently subdivided in accordance with a planning permission previously granted by the Council1 with the former annexe now comprising the dwelling subject to this appeal. Although the semi- detached properties share a vehicular access and rear amenity space is not formally divided, I observed that the dwellings are occupied independently with a layout that is consistent with the existing floor plans. 6. Policy D23 of the Wakefield Local Development Framework - Development Policies (LDF-DP), adopted April 2009, relates to existing uses in the Green Belt. The policy, amongst other things, identifies under point 2. that extensions and/or alterations to existing dwellings may be appropriate where: a) extensions are not disproportionate over and above the size of the existing building(s) when originally constructed, b) the scale, materials and general design are in keeping with the character of the buildings and their surroundings; and, c) it does not lead to a major increase in the developed portion of the site. 7. The Framework post-dates the adoption of the LDF-DP. Paragraph 89 of the Framework states that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate in Green Belt, unless it falls within certain listed exceptions. The listed exceptions include at bullet point 3 of paragraph 89, 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. In that respect, it is evident that criterion 2b) and c) of Policy D23 of the LDF-DP are not relevant to an assessment of whether a proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the Framework and rather are matters relevant to character and appearance which I necessarily consider separately as part of the subsequent main issue. 8. Policy D23 of the LDF-DP in criterion 2a) provides a relatively narrow definition of an existing building as originally constructed. However, appeal decisions2 following the publication of the Framework have been drawn to my attention whereby Inspectors concluded that in circumstances where a previous dwelling 1 Council ref: 13/00368/FUL 2 Appeal refs: APP/Q4245/D/12/2171839 - 5 April 2012 and APP/T3725/A/12/2185711 - 20 May 2013 Appeal Decision APP/X4725/D/17/3190991 3 has been split into two, the original building should be that which existed immediately after it was subdivided. To my mind, such a conclusion is consistent with case law that has established that if a dwelling no longer exists it cannot be used as a reference point when considering what the habitable volume or floorspace of the dwelling was originally. 9. Having regard to the above, the existing dwelling subject to this appeal should be considered to be the original building for the purposes of paragraph 89 of the Framework as a new planning unit was created following the implementation of the planning permission to subdivide Red Croft. As such any prior extensions to Red Croft that preceded its subdivision are not relevant to whether the proposal is inappropriate development in Green Belt, nor are any extensions to the neighbouring dwelling which may have taken place since. Such a view accords with the Council’s approach when previously granting planning permission for a single storey rear extension to the appeal property3, which remains extant. Consequently, criterion 2a) of Policy D23 of the LDF-DP is not consistent with the Framework. 10. The Framework does not provide a specific definition of what would constitute a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building and, therefore, it is a matter of judgement for the decision maker. The Wakefield Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, adopted January 2018, indicates that a maximum extension of up to 50% of the volume and 50% of the floor space of the original house may be regarded as proportionate. I am satisfied that those thresholds are a reasonable definition for such an assessment. 11. Based upon the evidence before me, the two storey side extension as proposed and the single storey rear extension previously granted planning permission when taken together would increase the volume and floor space of the original house by less than 50%. The additional opening on the principal elevation involves no increase in volume or floor space. It follows that the cumulative effect of the proposal subject to this appeal and a single storey rear extension already granted planning permission would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building and therefore, would fall within the listed exception at bullet point 3 of paragraph 89 of the Framework. Consequently, the appeal proposal is not inappropriate development in Green Belt. 12. The Council have expressed concern that the proposal would have an adverse effect upon the openness of the Green Belt and that permitted development rights for extensions to the property have been previously removed to prevent such harm. However, the effect upon the openness of the Green Belt of an extension or alteration that does not result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building is implicitly taken into account in the exception at bullet point 3 of paragraph 89 of the Framework. Consequently, as the development would accord with the exception, it is not necessary that I separately assess its impact upon openness. The siting and proportions of the proposed extension and the additional opening in the principal elevation also would not harm the other purposes of Green Belt listed in the Framework. 13. I conclude that the proposal is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt when having regard to the Framework, with the limited conflict with Policy D23 3 Council ref: 17/00358/FUL Appeal Decision APP/X4725/D/17/3190991 4 of the LDF-DP outweighed for the reasons previously stated. As I have found that the proposal is not inappropriate development in Green Belt and no other harm has been identified in Green Belt terms, it is not necessary to consider whether there would be very special circumstances. I, therefore, necessarily go on to consider the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing property and the area within the remaining main issue below. Character and appearance 14. The appeal property is in a rural location with paddock land to the side of the existing dwelling, together with open fields to the rear beyond boundary hedging. The two-storey semi-detached property has red brick walls and a concrete tile roof in a hipped roof design that is similar to the adjoining Red Croft despite some minor differences in building lines, roof characteristics and the presence of a projecting outrigger with bay window features to that neighbouring property. 15. The appeal proposal includes the introduction of an additional opening on the front elevation to provide an entrance door that would improve the legibility of the existing dwelling as part of the semi-detached pair of properties. In that context, the two storey side extension would be less than half the width of the existing semi-detached dwelling with a design that incorporates a set back from the established building lines, together with a lowered ridge height of its hipped roof. As a consequence, subject to a condition to secure matching materials, the side extension would be viewed as a subservient addition to the existing property that would respect its character and appearance in terms of design, scale, massing and height. 16. I have taken into account that the Council expressed specific concerns in terms of the resultant enlarged façade, scale, bulk and massing of Red Croft when the proposed extension is taken together with previous alterations to what was once a more modest detached dwelling. Nonetheless, given my previous findings, it is clear that the character of Red Croft was altered following its subdivision to create the appeal property and in that context, it is reasonable that the proposal is determined in so far as it now relates to a semi-detached pair of properties. As the proposal would be of an appropriate design, scale and proportions to ensure that it would be viewed as a subservient addition to the side of the appeal property, it would not unbalance the appearance of the semi-detached pair. Although the cumulative frontage of the semi-detached properties would be relatively large, the overall scale and proportions would not appear dominant or out of place in a set back position from Darning Lane when viewed relative to the considerable expanse of neighbouring rural buildings. 17. I conclude that the development would not harm the character and appearance of the existing property and the area. The proposal, therefore, would not conflict with Policies D9, D10 and D23 of the LDF-DP in that respect. When taken together the policies, amongst other things, seek that extensions and alterations to dwellings shall respect the character of the dwelling, buildings and their surroundings in the locality including in terms of design, scale, massing, height, density, layout and colour. The policies are broadly consistent with the Framework in so far as they relate to its design objectives and matters of character and appearance. Appeal Decision APP/X4725/D/17/3190991 5 Other Matters 18. The proposal would retain sufficient garden space to ensure a suitable living environment for occupiers of the appeal property. The development also would not significantly alter existing parking provision within the site and the extension would be sited in a position that would not have an adverse impact on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties. Conditions 19. The Council have provided a suggested list of conditions. Where necessary, the wording has been amended to ensure compliance with paragraph 206 of the Framework. A time limit and plans compliance condition are imposed in the interest of certainty in terms of the planning permission hereby granted. As previously mentioned, a condition to secure matching materials is also necessarily imposed in the interests of the character and appearance of the existing property and the area. Conclusion 20. For the reasons given above and taking all other matters into consideration, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed and planning permission granted subject to the conditions as set out in the formal decision. Gareth Wildgoose INSPECTOR