Loft conversion

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 June 2018 by Ian McHugh Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/p1805/d/18/3198373 18a Linthurst Road, Barnt Green, B60 1QH  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 Justin Thomas against the decision of Bromsgrove District Council.  The application Ref 17/00804/FUL, dated 14 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 1 February 2018.  The development proposed is a loft conversion. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The appeal development is described on the planning application form as a loft conversion. However both the Council’s decision notice and the appeal form contain a fuller description which is, extensions and alterations to property to create first floor accommodation. In my opinion, the Council’s decision notice and the appeal form provide a clearer description of the works proposed and I have dealt with the appeal on this basis. 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;  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; and  Whether the proposal would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Barnt Green Conservation Area (CA). Appeal Decision APP/P1805/D/18/3198373 2 Reasons Inappropriate Development 4. The appeal property is a detached single storey dwelling, which is situated within the Green Belt and adjacent to the CA. The building was previously the subject of a certificate of lawful use for use as a separate dwelling. Subsequently, the dwelling has been extended (with the benefit of planning permissions at the side and rear). Two storey properties adjoin the site on either side. 5. The CA has a distinctive character, which is mainly defined by large dwellings positioned within spacious landscaped gardens. Mature trees and woodland add to the verdant and rural nature of the area. The appeal property appears rather different because it has a closer physical and visual relationship with the neighbouring dwellings on either side. 6. The proposal is to increase the height of the property and construct three dormer windows at the front and a first floor extension at the rear. Policy BD4.4 of the adopted Bromsgrove District Plan 2011-2030 (DP) states (amongst other things) that the development of new buildings within the Green Belt is considered to be inappropriate unless it meets with one of a list of exceptions. The exceptions include the extension of existing dwellings up to a maximum of 40% of the original dwelling or increases in size up to a maximum total floorspace of 140sqm. In my opinion, whilst more prescriptive, the policy accords with the provisions of paragraph 89 of the Framework, which allows for the extension of a building, provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 7. The Council states that the appeal proposal would result in a cumulative addition of 181% above the size of the original dwelling house. I have received no evidence to the contrary from the appellant. Consequently, I consider that the proposal would be a disproportionate addition and it would conflict with Policy BD4.4 of the DP and with the Framework, as referred to above. Therefore, the proposal would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Openness 8. The courts have ruled that the openness of the Green Belt has both spatial and visual dimensions. Although the footprint of the building would not change, the proposal would add significantly to the bulk and mass of the building. Accordingly, there would be an impact on the openness of the Green Belt. This adds to the harm that I have identified above by reason of inappropriateness. Other Considerations 9. The appellant’s Design and Access and Heritage Statement states that the proposal would complement and enhance the existing property and would be energy efficient. However, in my opinion, these benefits do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt that I have identified above. Consequently, they do not amount to the very special circumstances that are necessary to grant planning permission. Appeal Decision APP/P1805/D/18/3198373 3 Conservation Area 10. A distinctive characteristic of the CA is its spacious appearance, which arises from the separation distances between properties and relatively large plot sizes. Policy BDP20 of the DP states that the Council will support proposals that sustain and enhance the significance of heritage assets, including their setting. In my opinion, Policy BDP20 is consistent with the provisions of paragraphs 17 and 58 and with Section 12 of the Framework. 11. Although the appeal property is not within the CA, I agree with the Council that it does form part of its setting and that it is viewed in association with the CA. In that regard, the existing single storey structure complements the spacious character of the adjoining CA, particularly when approaching from the south- west. Whilst I consider that the proposal would result in some detailed design improvements to the overall appearance of the dwelling itself, the additional bulk and mass resulting from the development would emphasise its close proximity to the neighbouring properties and it would have a negative effect on the spacious appearance of the area. The proposal would, therefore, be harmful to the setting of the heritage asset. 12. I consider that the proposal would result in ‘less than substantial harm’ to the setting of the CA in the context of paragraph 134 of the Framework. However, it has not been demonstrated that there would be any public benefits arising from the development that would outweigh the harm that I have identified. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with the Development Plan and with the Framework, as referred to above. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above, it is concluded that the appeal should be dismissed. Ian McHugh INSPECTOR