Erection of a single storey side and rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 May 2018 by Ian McHugh Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/C1950/D/18/3197026 Homerswood Cottage, 7 Digswell Hill, Welwyn, AL6 9AH • 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 Keith Piggott against the decision of Welwyn Hatfield Council. • The application Ref 6/2017/2865/HOUSE, dated 7 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 6 February 2018. • The development proposed is the erection of a single storey side and rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey side and rear extension at Homerswood Cottage, 7 Digswell Hill, Welwyn, in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 6/2017/2865/HOUSE, dated 7 December 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: DWG No 12995-P007-C. 2) The materials to be used in the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Procedural Matter 2. I observed at my site visit that works to the proposed development had commenced and that a substantial amount of building work has already taken place. However, I have determined this appeal on its merits and with regard to the evidence that has been put before me. Main Issues 3. These are: • Whether the proposal is inappropriate development within the Green Belt having regard to the provisions of the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and on the character and appearance of the area; and • If found to 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 the development. Appeal Decision APP/C1950/D/18/3197026 2 Reasons 4. The appeal property is a detached dwelling, which is situated in open countryside adjacent to the B197, Digswell Hill. The dwelling occupies an elevated position above the road and is substantially enclosed on three sides by woodland. The property has a distinctive character and appears to be of the late Victorian/Edwardian period. Notable features include gables and steeply sloping roofs. 5. The proposal is to erect a single storey side and rear extension. The side section is proposed on the right hand side of the property (when viewing from the road). A single storey extension is also being constructed on the left hand side but this does not form part of the appeal. 6. Paragraph 89 of the Framework states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, subject to specified exceptions. These exceptions include the extension or alteration of a building, provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. This is reflected in Policy RA3 of the Council’s adopted District Plan 2005 (DP). 7. Neither the Framework nor the DP provide any further guidance on the term ‘disproportionate’. Consequently, it is a matter for the decision maker. With regard to this appeal, I consider that the proposed extensions to the dwelling (when compared to the original building) amount to disproportionate development in terms of both floorspace and volume. Consequently, I conclude that the proposal is inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Openness, Character and Appearance 8. The courts have ruled that the openness of the Green Belt has both spatial and visual dimensions. The amount of new development would result in new buildings where none existed previously. Consequently, the proposal will reduce the openness of the Green Belt in spatial terms. However, the main part of the extension (at the rear) is not visible from the public domain and whilst the side extension is visible from Digswell Hill, I consider that the overall effect on the openness of the Green Belt is slight. Nevertheless, this adds to the harm that I have already identified by reason of inappropriateness. 9. With regard to character and appearance, the extensions differ from the existing dwelling in terms of their scale and generally contemporary design (particularly at the rear). However, the original dwelling and its main distinctive features would remain and, therefore, I consider that the proposal would not be unduly harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Other Considerations 10. I have found that the appeal proposal is inappropriate development and that there is also some (albeit slight) harm to the openness of 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. 11. The appellant draws attention to a relatively detailed and complex planning history relating to the site over recent years. This includes a mixture of planning permissions and Lawful Development Certificates for side and rear Appeal Decision APP/C1950/D/18/3197026 3 extensions. Whilst it is clear that the appeal development cannot be constructed as permitted development, because the side and rear extension would be joined together, I am not persuaded that it cannot be given weight for that reason. Both parties agree that were it not for the fact that the extensions are physically joined then they could be lawfully constructed. In my opinion, the overall effect of the lawful development on the Green Belt, its openness and on the character and appearance of the property would remain virtually the same as the appeal proposal. 12. In view of the above, I consider that the fall-back position is a material consideration which attracts significant weight in favour of the proposed development. In my opinion, this amounts to the very special circumstances which clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and which are necessary to justify the proposal. Conditions 13. The Council has suggested conditions in the event of the appeal being allowed. These have been considered in the light of the advice contained within the Planning Practice Guidance. 14. As the development has already commenced the standard condition regarding commencement is not necessary 15. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 16. To ensure a satisfactory appearance, a condition requiring the use of external materials to match the existing dwelling is also necessary. Conclusion 17. For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal should be allowed. Ian McHugh INSPECTOR