Decking to the rear of the dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 May 2018 by R C Shrimplin MA(Cantab) DipArch RIBA FRTPI FCIArb MCIL an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 May 2018 Appeal Reference: APP/K2230/D/18/3196119 ‘Stables Cottage’, Hermitage Road, Higham, Rochester ME3 7NE  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 Miss K Roberts against the decision of Gravesham Borough Council.  The application (reference 20170958, dated 31 August 2017) was refused by notice dated 13 December 2017.  The development proposed is described in the application form as “decking to the rear of the dwelling”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issues 2. The first main issue to be determined in this appeal is whether the decking is “inappropriate development” in terms of Green Belt policies. If so, it is necessary to consider whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm would be clearly outweighed by other considerations; if not, it is nonetheless necessary to consider the impact of the proposed development on the surroundings. A further main issue is the effect of the decking on the privacy of the adjoining property. Reasons 3. The appeal site lies in the open countryside, where the land slopes down and away from Hermitage Road to the east of Higham, on the south side of the road. The surrounding land is predominantly rural and open in character and it lies both within the Green Belt and the ‘Higham Arable Farms Landscape Character Area’. ‘Stables Cottage’ is a dwelling but it is associated with a more extensive holding that is dedicated to an equestrian business, with stables, paddocks and other elements. 4. The dwelling itself is one of a pair of semi-detached cottages that stand back from Hermitage Road, in large plots. However, ‘Stables Cottage’ and its garden are particularly prominent in the landscape, especially in views from the east along Hermitage Road, where there are gaps in the highway boundary hedge (including one large opening) and as a result of the openness of the Appeal Decision: APP/K2230/D/18/3196119 2 garden itself, which extends beyond the east elevation of the house and which is bounded on the east only by a post and two-rail fence. 5. A decking structure has been erected at the rear of ‘Stables Cottage’ and planning permission is now sought for this, retrospectively. Other matters have been referred to in submissions but these are not the subject of the current appeal. 6. The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ makes it plain, at paragraph 89, that the construction of new buildings is not normally acceptable in the Green Belt and that they should only be permitted in “very special circumstances”. Nevertheless, the extension of an existing building in the Green Belt can be acceptable “provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building”. 7. Local Policies reinforce the general principles that apply in Green Belts, notably Policy CS02 of the ‘Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy’ (which is very broad) and “saved” Policy C13 of the ‘Gravesham Local Plan First Review’ (though the original Policy predates the ‘National Planning Policy Framework’). However, Policy CS12 of the ‘Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy’ is aimed at protecting “the overall landscape character and valued landscapes” more generally. 8. The ‘National Planning Policy Framework’ also emphasises the aim of “requiring good design” in the broadest sense (notably at Section 7) and it points out the importance of maintaining the overall quality of the area as well as both providing good standards of accommodation and protecting existing residential amenities. Local Policies in the Development Plan reinforce this basic aim, notably Policy CS19 of the ‘Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy’. 9. The decking which is the subject of this appeal is a large structure, in relation to the host building, extending away from the rear of ‘Stables Cottage’. It is clad with vertical timber boarding; with open wooden balustrades around the edge of the decked area. The decking is aligned with the ground floor level of the existing house but, because of the fall of the land, the solid part of the structure rises approximately 1.43 metres above the adjacent ground level at its deepest point. 10. In terms of Green Belt policies, the decking structure can be considered to be an extension to the existing building but, though it has a large area, it is not a tall structure. Moreover, it is noted that certain types of fence or other domestic paraphernalia can normally be erected or placed in the gardens of existing houses. Hence, for the purposes of this appeal, I have concluded that the decking ought not to be classified as “inappropriate development” in terms of Green Belt policy. Nevertheless, it is necessary to consider the impact of the development on its surroundings. 11. The decking structure is a significant feature that is prominent in the landscape, due to its siting and visual impact. It erodes the rural character of the area and undermines the qualities of the ‘Higham Arable Farms Landscape Character Area’. It is visually intrusive and, therefore, is contrary to both local and national policies that are intended to maintaining the quality of the surroundings. Appeal Decision: APP/K2230/D/18/3196119 3 12. The decking is undoubtedly a useful addition to the accommodation at ‘Stables Cottage’, especially in the light of the particular needs of the occupants. Even so, it has a large area in relation to the dwelling and the benefits of the decking (as currently constructed) do not outweigh the planning objections that have been identified. 13. The decking has been constructed against the boundary wall of the property with the neighbouring dwelling, which creates an intrusion on neighbours’ privacy. Had the structure been otherwise acceptable in planning terms, it may have been possible to overcome this concern by the imposition of a condition requiring the erection of suitable screening, or by introducing some separating feature, alongside the boundary. In the circumstances, however, the issue of conditions does not arise. 14. In short, I am convinced that the harm that is done to the appearance of the surrounding area outweigh the benefits of the project (even though the same might not be true of a reduced scheme). Hence, I have concluded that the scheme before me would conflict with both national and local planning policies (including the Development Plan) and that it ought not to be allowed. Although I have considered all the matters that have been raised in the representations in relation to this appeal, I have found nothing to cause me to alter my decision. Roger C Shrimplin INSPECTOR