Single and two storey rear extensions to side and rear and internal alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 June 2018 by Clive Tokley MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/B1930/D/18/3198270 244 Lower Luton Road, Wheathampstead, St Albans, AL4 8HN.  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 Alistair Whiteford against the decision of St Albans City Council.  The application ref 5/17/3264, dated 18 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 15 January 2018.  The development proposed is described as single and two storey rear extensions to side and rear and internal alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey side extension, single-storey rear extension and alterations linking house to outbuilding, rooflights, front pitched roof, alterations to openings and enlargement of front hardstanding at 244 Lower Luton Road, Wheathampstead, St Albans, AL4 8HN. The permission is in accordance with the terms of the application ref 5/17/3264, dated 18 November 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 materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the two-storey side extension and front pitched roof hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2426-01, 2426-02, 2426-06A, 2426-07 and 2426-08. Clarification of proposal 2. The description of the proposal on the application form (as set out in the heading above) is unclear and incomplete. The Council’s description is more accurate and comprehensive. In the interests of clarity the description that I use in the decision is based on the Council description. The two-storey side extension necessarily encompasses the new roof and there is no need to make specific reference to that aspect of the proposal in the description. Appeal Decision APP/B1930/D/18/3198270 2 Main Issues 3. The main issues are: - a. Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework). b. The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt. c. The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the dwelling and the area. d. If the proposal is inappropriate development whether there are any other considerations that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt due to inappropriateness and any other harm and whether very special circumstances exist to justify the granting of permission. Reasons Inappropriate development 4. The Framework indicates that within Green Belts inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The construction of new buildings is normally inappropriate development; however in Paragraph 89 the Framework identifies a range of developments which may not be inappropriate. These exceptions include a specific provision for the enlargement of a building. 5. Bullet point 3 of Paragraph 89 indicates that 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, may not be inappropriate. “Original” is defined by the Framework as a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after that date, as it was originally built. 6. Policy 13 of the St Albans City and District Local Plan Review of 1994 (LP) indicates that house extensions in the Green Belt should not create a building that is significantly larger than the original dwelling and is therefore broadly in accordance with the later Framework. Guidance on the interpretation of Policy 13 is provided by part 7.0 of the May 2004 Supplementary Planning Guidance on Residential Extensions and Replacement Dwellings in the Green Belt (SPG). The SPG sets out a range of sizes described as “guidelines” for side and rear extensions expressed as increases in cubic content and the percentage increase in floor space. 7. The appeal property comprises a two-storey dwelling with a detached outbuilding. The Council indicates that the house has not been extended and therefore is the “original” dwelling. The appellant does not challenge the Council’s indication that the proposal would add about 230 sq m to the floorspace of the buildings (an increase of 55%) with an increase in volume of 205 cu m. The Council points out that those figures exceed the ranges for both floorspace and volume in the SPG. 8. The SPG indicates that the use of both floor space and volume results in a “better” measure of the overall size of a proposal. In my view this is particularly so when considering proposals that include loft conversions and the Council’s figures exclude the floorspace created in the roof area. Taking Appeal Decision APP/B1930/D/18/3198270 3 account of the shallow pitched roof of the link and off-setting this against the increase in volume at roof level I consider that the percentage increase in floorspace is a reasonable proxy for the percentage increase in volume and therefore overall “size”. 9. The proposal would exceed the size indicated in the SPG; however the SPG indicates that the figures are not rigid limits and that the Council’s main concern is to ensure that a number of criteria set out in paragraph 7.1 of the SPG are complied with. The officer report indicates that with the exception of criterion (vi), which concerns design, the proposal performs well against the criteria set out in the SPG. 10. The appeal property lies within a row of houses and bungalows where there is no established design theme. The house is of an unusual and unsettling design with a wide front gable that springs on one side from the centre line of a first- floor window. The height and vertical face of the gable result in the house being more prominent in the street than its hipped-roof and side-gabled neighbours. A lower-ridged roof extends from the west-facing plane of the main roof ending in a narrower and lower west-facing gable. 11. The proposal would increase the width of the side-facing gable resulting in a longer flank wall and an increase in height of the ridge. The new ridge would remain below the level of the main front-to-back ridge and would be set back from the front wall of the house. Taking account of the prominence of the front gable I consider that the extended roof plane and higher ridge to the side would have a very limited effect on the appearance of the house when seen square-on from the front. The hipped-roof bungalow to the west enables the flank gable to be seen from the street but I consider that the limited increase in the width and height proposed would have no significant effect on the perceived bulk of the dwelling when seen from the west. 12. As a result of its lower ridge and narrow width I consider that the extended side element of the house would remain subservient to the larger front-to-rear part of the dwelling and its design would result in it being successfully integrated with the building. The contrasting single-storey mainly glazed structure at the rear would not be publicly visible and would not detract from the design or character of the house. I consider that the proposal would not detract from the character or appearance of the host building or the area. 13. The proposal would exceed the guidelines for the size of extensions in the Green Belt; however in my view it would satisfy each of the qualitative criteria (ii to viii) of paragraph 7.1 of the SPG. The size guidelines within the SPG are helpful in indicating the scale of development that is likely to be acceptable within the Green Belt; however they are not rigid limits. I consider that an increase size of around 55% would not result in the proposal being disproportionate to the original dwelling and the proposal would not offend against the qualitative criteria set out in the SPG. I therefore consider that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Openness 14. An assessment of “inappropriateness” implicitly takes account of any effect on openness; therefore whilst the proposal would result in additional building in the Green Belt it would not unacceptably detract from openness. Appeal Decision APP/B1930/D/18/3198270 4 Character and appearance 15. I have already considered the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building in the context of paragraph 7.1 of the SPG. For the reasons that I set out above I conclude that the proposal would not conflict with LP Policy 69 (General design and layout) or Policy 72 (Extensions in residential areas). Other matters 16. The proposal would extend the flank wall of the garage which is close to the side boundary with No 242; this would have an effect on the outlook from the nearest rear-facing glazed doors of No 242; however the proposed flank wall would not be immediately next to the rear wall of the neighbouring house. Taking account of the limited height of this element of the proposal and the outlook from the neighbouring house into its rear garden I consider that the proposal would not be unacceptably overbearing. 17. Neighbouring gardens are already overlooked to some extent from the first and second floor rear windows. The proposed “balcony” would be recessed within the envelope of the building which would reduce the degree of overlooking from inside the bedroom. I consider that the use of the balcony as a semi- outside space would be no more harmful than the existing arrangements and it would not result in unacceptable overlooking. 18. The existing ground floor glazed bay and rear-facing windows allow some overlooking of neighbouring gardens. This is limited by garden fences but the fence alongside No 246 is less than 1.8m and that garden is also open to view from the paved areas in the garden of the appeal property. The glazed walls of the family room and dining area would enable views out towards the garden of No 246. If necessary this could be mitigated by a higher fence but the proposal would not be more harmful than the existing arrangement and a condition requiring a higher fence is not justified. 19. I have noted residents’ concern about possible disruption during development but this is not sufficient reason to refuse permission and taking account of the nature and scale of the proposal I consider that it is not necessary to seek to control the development process through the imposition of conditions. 20. I conclude that the proposal would not be unacceptably harmful to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers and that it this respect it would not conflict with LP Policy 72. Conditions 21. I have imposed the normal conditions governing the commencement of development and identifying the approved drawings. In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the public domain I have also imposed a condition requiring that the finishing materials of the two-storey extension and front pitched roof shall match those of the host dwelling. The glazed link and garage alterations would by their nature not match the existing dwelling; however they must be finished in accordance with the details of the planning application and there is no need for a specific condition to that effect. Appeal Decision APP/B1930/D/18/3198270 5 Conclusion 22. I have concluded that proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and I have not identified any harm that would arise from the proposal. Taking account of all matters I conclude that the appeal should succeed. Clive Tokley INSPECTOR