Porch infill and internal alterations and a stand-alone garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 March 2018 by Kenneth Stone BSc Hons DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4th April 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P5870/D/17/3192821 81 Gilhams Avenue, Banstead SM7 1QW  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 Shan Nagendram against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Sutton.  The application Ref A2017/77744/HHA, dated 4 August 2017, was refused by notice dated 10 October 2017.  The development proposed is described as ‘a porch infill and internal alterations and a stand-alone garage’. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a porch infill and internal alterations and a stand-alone garage at 81 Gilhams Avenue, Banstead SM7 1QW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref A2017/77744/HHA, dated 4 August 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: AG1: Designs drawings 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06 and 07. 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. Procedural matters 2. Subsequent to the decision by the Council and the lodging of this appeal the London Borough of Sutton adopted the Sutton Local Plan (2018) (SLP), on 26 February 2018. This replaces the Core Strategy (2009) and the Sites Development Policies Development Plan Document (2012). The policies in those documents are superseded and no longer form part of the development Plan. The SLP now forms part of the development plan for the area and I have to have regard to it in the determination of this appeal. I have given the parties the opportunity to comment and had regard to their comments in my consideration of this appeal. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this case are: Appeal Decision APP/P5870/D/17/3192821 2  Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt for the purposes of national policy and the policies of the Development Plan.  The effect of the development upon the openness of the Green Belt.  The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host building and the surrounding area. Reasons Whether inappropriate development in the Green Belt. 4. The property comprises a detached house erected sometime after 2001. I understand that planning permissions was granted for the demolition of an existing bungalow and the erection of a four bedroom house, with permitted development rights removed, in January 2001. 5. The site is located within the Cuddington Green Belt. Gilhams Avenue is characterised by low density, suburban residential development with detached properties in large plots which in part backs onto Cuddington Golf Course giving views to the open Green Belt. This is characteristic of the wider area. 6. National policy in the Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances (paragraph 87). Paragraph 89 notes that Local Planning Authorities should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt subject to some exceptions, including 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. The glossary to the Framework describes an “original” building as one that existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was originally built. 7. Policy 24 of the SLP states that the Council will grant planning permission for extensions to, alterations to and the replacement of an existing building or structure in the Green Belt provided that the increase in the external volume of the built form is no greater than 30 per cent above the size of the original building of structure (part e). The following advice on meeting the Policy, at P24.7, states that the 30% figure should only be treated as an indication and the Council will consider the mass, scale and any increase in ridge height in order to determine if an extension is disproportionate. It also advises that the original building or structure means the building or structure (and garages and ancillary buildings within 5 metres) that existed in 1948 or when first built if later than 1948. This is consistent with the Framework’s definition of original building. 8. The property the subject of this appeal was constructed sometime after 2001 and therefore after 1948. Given the advice in meeting the policy and the Frameworks definition of original building the original building in this case is the newly constructed detached dwelling not the previous bungalow. Therefore any increase in volume should be assessed against the property as constructed following the 2001 permission. There has been a small single storey addition added to that property and the proposed extensions under the terms of this appeal include the attached garage and the enclosed porch. The existing porch is already roofed and the space is ‘enclosed’ such that the addition of additional walls does not increase the volume of space enclosed by the built form. The Appeal Decision APP/P5870/D/17/3192821 3 small single garage structure and side way, even with the addition of the existing extension, would not appear to amount to in excess of 30% of the volume of the original building, i.e. the recently constructed two storey detached dwelling. Moreover the proposed garage is modest in mass and scale and its ridge height does not increase the ridge height of the original property. 9. On the basis of the above I conclude that the proposed extensions, added to the existing extension, would not increase the volume of the property by in excess of 30% of the original building and would not amount to disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building in terms of both the Framework and Policy 24. 10. For these reasons, therefore, I find that the appeal proposals would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt for the purposes of both national and Development Plan policy. Effect upon openness of Green Belt. 11. It is proposed to enclose the front porch area and add a small single garage. The garage would be provided with a hipped and pitched roof and the space between the garage and original property would be enclosed. The short ridge to the roof would be sited below that of the height of the main roof of the property and the originally attached garage. The proposed garage would be sited approximately in line with the front of the original property and wold not project beyond the rear main elevation of the house. 12. The plot includes a substantial rear garden and is further separated from the open Green Belt beyond by an area of mature trees within the Golf Course. The extensions would be seen against the backdrop of the original house and in close proximity to it, would be subservient to the property and only result in a minimal increase in the overall volume. The garage would replace an existing fence which demarks the garden and restrict views into the site. 13. The proposals would not undermine the reasons for including land in the Green Belt and in particular would not result in an incursion into the countryside 14. For the above reasons I conclude that any impact upon the openness of the Green Belt would be minimal. Character and appearance 15. The proposed extensions are minor in scale and massing and would not substantively add to the bulk, mass or scale of the existing property. The property is set back from the road and screened by mature landscaping to the sides and front. The enclosure of the porch would be seen against the back drop of the existing house and I understand the Council has approved this aspect of the scheme under a separate application. The proposed garage would increase the width of the built form but by what I consider a relatively small, proportionately, amount. The siting of the garage in line with the main house ensures it is not prominently sited in the street scene and the surrounding landscaping would mitigate any impact. There would remain a small separation to the boundary but this is not uncommon in surrounding properties and the reducing scale of the built form towards the boundaries ensures that it is satisfactorily accommodated within the street scene. The use Appeal Decision APP/P5870/D/17/3192821 4 of matching materials would further assist in integrating the extension with the original property. 16. For the reasons given above I conclude that the proposed development would not materially affect the character and appearance of the host building or the surrounding area. Consequently it would not conflict with policy 28 of the SLP which seeks, amongst other matters, to promote a high quality of design, compatible with the character and appearance of the locality and which responds to local distinctiveness. This is consistent with the Framework and in particular the core planning principles at paragraph 17 and paragraphs 56 and 60. Other matters 17. The proposal provides for a garage for parking of vehicles in a large domestic curtilage, where none presently exist. Overall conclusions and conditions 18. I have concluded that the proposal would not amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Moreover I have concluded that the proposals would not result in material harm to the character and appearance of the building or surrounding area with only a minimal impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal provides for a covered car parking space for a large detached house in a substantial plot. Overall I am satisfied the proposal does not conflict with the development plan with which it should be determined in accordance as there are no material considerations to indicate otherwise 19. The Council has identified three conditions related to the statutory time limit, approved plans and materials to match. I have considered these against the tests in the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance and I am satisfied that these are reasonable and necessary. An approved plans condition is required for the avoidance of doubt and in the proper interest of planning and a materials condition is required in the interest of the appearance of the development and the visual amenities of the area. 20. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Kenneth Stone INSPECTOR