Partial redevelopment of property involving extensions, refurbishment and internal alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 February 2018 by Patrick Whelan BA(Hons) Dip Arch MA MSc ARB RIBA RTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P0240/D/18/3194991 Springfield House, 48 Tilsworth Road, Stanbridge LU7 9JA  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 Danny Taylor against the decision of Central Bedfordshire Council.  The application Ref CB/17/05103/FULL, dated 22 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 10 January 2018.  The development proposed is the partial redevelopment of property involving extensions, refurbishment and internal alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are:  Whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework);  The effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt;  The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and,  If the proposal would be 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 it. Reasons Whether inappropriate development 3. The site lies in the village of Stanbridge, in the Green Belt. It contains a detached house on a plot of land to the back of houses fronting the surrounding streets. Planning permission has been granted for a detached house alongside the house the subject of this appeal. 4. The Framework sets out that new buildings within the Green Belt are inappropriate unless, amongst other things, it involves the extension of a Appeal Decision APP/P0240/D/18/3194991 2 building. This is provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 5. Policy H13 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review 2004 (LP) allows extensions to dwellings in the Green Belt, provided they are modest in scale and do not result in disproportionate, cumulative additions over and above the size of the original building. It also says that in considering the effect of an extension on the openness of the Green Belt, the location of the dwelling and its relationship to development in the vicinity will be taken into account. While the broad thrust of LP policy H13 is consistent with paragraph 89 of the Framework, H13 is wider and more prescriptive. In accordance with paragraph 215 of the Framework, this limits the weight I can accord it. 6. The footprint of the existing house would increase from around 112m2 to around 184m2, and part of its roof would also be raised. The Council measures the internal floor area of the original dwelling as 134m2, and the internal floor area including this proposal, as 446m2; an increase of more than 200%. 7. The Council’s Design Guide1 suggests that extensions in the Green Belt of up to 60% of the original building should be considered as proportionate. While the Framework does not define what is disproportionate, and the numerical values do not alone inform the evaluation of the additions, the proposed increase would be substantially greater than the Council’s rule of thumb figure. Comparing the size of the original building to the one that would result if the proposal were to go ahead, the additions in both superficial and in volumetric terms would be disproportionate over and above the size of the original building. 8. The Council considered the potential under permitted development to extend the house with a further 85m2 of floor space. However, even taking this increase into account, the proposal would remain disproportionate over and above the size of the original building. 9. The appellant is of the view that the proposal should be considered against LP policy GB3 and the exception in bullet point 6 of paragraph 89 of the Framework, as partial redevelopment. Policy GB3 permits limited redevelopment and limited extension to non-residential property in Stanbridge. The sub-text of the policy defines this as being not materially larger than the built form which it replaces, in terms of both height and footprint. This proposal concerns residential use and it would be larger than the existing house. It fails to meet the exception of the policy. 10. Paragraph 89 bullet-point 6 describes the partial redevelopment of a previously developed site which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development as an exception to the presumption that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate development. 11. My view is that a development of this scale which extends a building sideways, rearwards and upwards from the existing shell should be considered under bullet point 3, as an extension. The proposed development would not resite the house, nor would it rebuild it; it would not replace its principal walls nor realign its front building line nor relocate its entrance. It would not reorientate 1 Central Bedfordshire Design Guide 2014 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/D/18/3194991 3 its aspects nor reconfigure its arrangement of rooms off a central circulation area. These factors suggest that the proposal does not fall under bullet point 6. 12. In any event, the impact of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt would be greater. More decisively, the Framework’s definition of previously developed land excludes land in built-up areas such as private residential gardens. Whilst the proposal is in the Green Belt, it is surrounded by houses. This gives it a built-up context. 13. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Paragraph 87 of the Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Openness 14. Paragraph 79 of the Framework confirms that openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. The proposed dwelling would be substantially larger than the existing building and occupy a greater footprint. 15. It would be surrounded by other houses, and there would be no visual intrusion into the openness of the Green Belt. However, the increase in the volume of development on the appeal site when compared with the existing situation would reduce the amount of undeveloped built form in the space between the surrounding houses. 16. I note the permission to develop a house alongside this house. Were this to be built, it would not change my finding above; if anything, the effect on openness from this proposal would be more marked as openness would already be reduced. I appreciate that the degree of harm would be limited in terms of its effect on the Green Belt as a whole. Nonetheless, it would diminish the openness of the Green Belt. This weighs against the proposal. Character and appearance 17. The footprint of the extended house and its volume would appear substantially greater than the more modest scale of the houses that surround it which are characterised by bungalows and 2-storey houses with smaller footprints. It would be at odds with the scale of the surrounding pattern of development, and it would be visible from the main road and from neighbouring houses. 18. While the extended house would be close to the boundary of the house consented alongside it, the consent appeared unimplemented and the boundary somewhat arbitrary. Wherever the boundary between the extended and consented house may lie, there are similar lateral gaps between houses in the area. I see no harm from this aspect of the proposal. I acknowledge the examples of large houses cited by the appellant, however these are not part of the context which defines the appeal site, nor am I aware of the circumstances which may have led to their approval. 19. I conclude on this issue that the proposed development would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it would be contrary to LP policies H8 and BE8 which seek development whose size complements and harmonises with the local surroundings and require extensions to take full account of the character of the site and its surroundings. Appeal Decision APP/P0240/D/18/3194991 4 It would also conflict with paragraph 58 of the Framework which aims to ensure that developments respond to local character and identity. Other considerations 20. The Framework advises that inappropriate development in the Green Belt should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 21. The appellant draws my attention to various planning permissions and appeal decisions. I have not been provided with the details of the development at Ashby House so cannot be sure of the circumstances which led to its approval. However, it appears to have a quite different spatial context to this site. I have treated this case on its own merits and its different physical and policy contexts. 22. The 2010 appeal decision at Common Road2 predates the Framework. It was assessed against a different policy in the Local Plan, for limited infilling in villages, whereas this proposal is an extension. In that case, the Inspector found the extension to represent a modest addition relative to the previous approval and the footprint of the public house before the extensions to it were demolished, concluding that it was not inappropriate development. In this proposal, the extension would be disproportionate to the original building and would be inappropriate development. The circumstances of that case and its policy context have limited relevance to this proposal. 23. While I note the 2013 appeal decision in Ockham3, it concerns a single storey extension of about 20m2 whereas this proposal includes side and first floor extensions and an increase in the roof height. The resulting increase on the original dwelling was 98% in that case, whereas the increase in floor area in this case is more than 200%. Furthermore, the Council had concluded in Ockham that the proposal would not harm the openness of the Green Belt and there was no other harm from that proposal. The parallels between that case and the present appeal are extremely limited. 24. I give no weight to the claim that by granting planning permission for a house alongside this one, the Council has indicated that openness is not critical in this location. Similarly, the location of the proposal may trigger the exception of limited infilling in villages given as an exception in the Green Belt; however, the proposed development is not infilling. 25. At most I give limited weight to the other material considerations cited in support of the proposals, including the lack of significant conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt whilst the proposal undermines its essential characteristics. I accept that public views of the proposal would be limited; however, it would be visible from surrounding dwellings, as well as from Tilsworth Road. Its backland location would not reduce its effect on the openness of the Green Belt. Simply because much of the proposal would rise from an existing concrete slab, does not, in a scheme of this size in this built- up location, mitigate the effect of the development on openness. 2 Appeal Ref: APP/P0240/A/10/2130721 3 Appeal Ref: APP/Y3615/D/13/2190816 Appeal Decision APP/P0240/D/18/3194991 5 26. Taken together, these do not outweigh the harm the proposed development would cause to the Green Belt and the harm to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal as inappropriate development in the Green Belt do not exist. Conclusion 27. The proposed development would be inappropriate development, which the Framework states is harmful to the Green Belt and should only be approved in very special circumstances. It would also cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt, albeit this would be limited in terms of its effect on the Green Belt as a whole. However, paragraph 88 of the Framework establishes that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. In addition, the scale of the extensions would cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the area. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Patrick Whelan INSPECTOR