Erection of a timber pergola in rear garden

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 September 2018 by Siobhan Watson BA(Hons) MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 24 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/T4210/D/18/3197730 109a Holcombe Old Road, Ramsbottom, BL8 4NF  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 Ms Amanda Heath against the decision of Bury Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref 61942, dated 19 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 1 February 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of a timber pergola in rear garden. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a timber pergola in rear garden at 109a Holcombe Old Road, Ramsbottom, BL8 4NF in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 61942, dated 19 September 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Layout; Location Plan; Plans and Elevations. 2) Before the top slats are installed, details of climbing plants to cover the pergola shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall include details of bee/butterfly friendly species and a planting implementation programme. The climbing plants shall be planted and trained around the pergola in accordance with the approved details and in accordance with the agreed implementation programme. Any plants which die or are removed within 5 years of planting shall be replaced with similar specimens in the next planting season following death/removal. 3) Before the top slats are installed at least one bird feeder shall be fixed to the pergola. A bird feeder shall be retained and filled with bird food thereafter. Main Issues 2. The appeal site is in the Green Belt so the main issues are:  Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework;  Whether the development preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Holcombe Conservation Area; Appeal Decision APP/T4210/D/18/3197730 2  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. Procedural Matters 3. The pergola has been partly constructed with roof slats to be added. I have no proposal for any additional vertical posts and I have based my decision on this basis. Reasons Whether or not it would be inappropriate 4. The Government attaches great importance to Greet Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. 5. Paragraph 145 of the Framework establishes that new buildings within the Green Belt are inappropriate unless they fall within certain exceptions. The pergola does not fall into any of these exceptions and is therefore inappropriate development, which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Paragraph 144 of the Framework indicates that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Effect on Openness 6. The Council concedes that the pergola has no detrimental effect on the openness of the Green Belt and as it is an open structure to be finished in posts and slats with no solid roof or wall, and as it is a fairly small structure, I find that there would be no material impact upon openness. Therefore I find no material conflict with Unitary Development Plan Policy OL1, the aims and objectives of which are to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Conservation Area 7. The conservation area is characterised by stone cottages constructed close together surrounded by fields and a narrow cobbled lane lined with greenery. The pergola is clearly visible from other gardens and from the fields behind. It is also glimpsed from the road and can be seen from a small section of the public footpath at the side of the house. 8. I appreciate that the gardens of the appeal house and those adjacent have low post and rail wooden fences. There is also a lack of boundary planting but this characteristic could easily change. The pergola, being a small and open structure is not out of character with the open nature of the surrounding rear gardens. In addition, it is a structure that is a traditional feature of domestic curtilages. Furthermore, the appellant proposes to grow plants around the pergola and this would be consistent with the quaint domestic character of the cottages. For these reasons I also find that it does not harm the Special Landscape Area within which it is situated. I note comments from interested parties that little of the garden remains but, I have seen the extent of the garden which is fairly generous. Appeal Decision APP/T4210/D/18/3197730 3 9. In my view, with the right planting, the proposal would enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area. Consequently, I find no conflict with UDP Policies H2/3, EN1/2, EN2/1, EN2/2 and EN9/1 which seek to protect the character and appearance of the townscape, of Special Landscape Areas and of Conservation Areas. Neither do I find conflict with the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document 6 Alterations and Extensions to Residential Properties which specifically refers to garden structures and advises that they should respect the character of the street-scene. Other Considerations 10. As a small open structure, I consider that the pergola does not harm the outlook of the adjoining occupiers. I note reference to an appeal decision in 19931 but the removal of permitted development rights is not an outright ban on further development. 11. The appellant intends to plant climbers around the pergola to attract bees and butterflies. She also intends to attach a bird feeder to it. These would have a clear benefit to wildlife. 12. I also note that the Council erroneously gave verbal advice to the appellant that planning permission would not be required. The Green Belt Balance 13. The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. As such, the Framework requires that the harm by reason of inappropriateness be given substantial weight and that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations. 14. The pergola will enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, there is no harm to openness and it will benefit wildlife. All these other considerations clearly outweigh the substantial harm that arises as a result of the development’s inappropriateness. The very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal therefore exist and there would be no conflict with the Framework. Conditions 15. I have considered the Council’s list of proposed conditions. There is no need for the standard implementation condition as the development has already commenced. A condition requiring materials to match the main building is clearly inappropriate as the main building is stone and the pergola is timber. A plans condition is necessary to ensure that the development does not deviate from that proposed. In the interests of wildlife I have also attached a condition requiring details of planting and to secure the provision of a bird feeder. 1 T/APP/T4210/A/93/223920/P4 Appeal Decision APP/T4210/D/18/3197730 4 Conclusion 16. I allow the appeal subject to the conditions above. Siobhan Watson INSPECTOR