Single storey extension to front, garage conversion with first floor extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 February 2021 by Nigel Harrison BA (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 February 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/M0655/D/21/3266690 45 Mill Lane, Lymm, Warrington, WA13 9SG • 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 D Phillpotts against the decision of Warrington Borough Council. • The application Ref: 2020/37531 dated 10 August 2020, was refused by notice dated 1 December 2020. • The development proposed is a single storey extension to front, garage conversion with first floor extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for a single storey extension to front, garage conversion with first floor extension at 45 Mill Lane, Lymm, Warrington, WA13 9SG in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref: 2020/37531 dated 10 August 2020, 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 development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 07/20/LP: Location Plan; 07/20/BP: Block plan; 80/20/2; proposed Main House; and 80/20/4 proposed Garage. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the porch and garage extensions hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issues 2. The appeal site lies within the Green Belt. 3. Therefore, the main issues are: 1) Whether the proposal amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; 2) the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and 3) if it is inappropriate development, whether harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances needed to justify the development. Appeal Decision APP/M0655/D/21/3266690 2 Reasons 4. The appeal site is located in a mostly residential, but semi-rural area, with some commercial properties nearby. The site lies adjacent to the Pennine Trail and is within the Green Belt settlement of Heatley. It is proposed to erect a front porch and add a pitched roof to the existing flat-roofed garage to the rear of the property. This would allow for the insertion of an upper floor containing a home office, and part of the garage would be converted to a home gym. 5. National policy on Green Belt development is set out in paragraphs 133-147 of the Framework, and paragraph 143 states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances, unless it falls within the closed lists of exceptions set out in paragraphs 145 and 146. 6. Most relevant here is paragraph 145 c which says the extension or alteration of a building is not inappropriate provided it does not result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. 7. The updated revised Framework does not make any specific reference to ancillary outbuildings within the curtilage of a dwelling, such as detached garages. However, even though the garage in this case is detached, and is located at the back of the garden, I am satisfied that it can be regarded as a ‘normal domestic adjunct’, and be treated as an extension for the purposes of paragraph 145 c. 8. Policy CC1 of the Warrington Local Plan Core Strategy (CS), adopted 2014, is generally consistent with the Framework in stating that new build development, will be allowed providing it complies with national planning policy and is a sustainable form of development. 9. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance confirms that a ‘limited’ extension is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. As a guideline, it says that an increase in floorspace of more than a third added to the original dwelling would generally be considered disproportionate. However, it adds, each case is judged on its own merits. 10. Although the dwelling dates from the 19th century, the definition of ‘original building’ for the purpose of any assessment is the building as it stood on 1 July 1948. There is dispute between the parties about the extent of the additions to the property since that date and whether or not the extensions now proposed would be disproportionate. The Council says that previous extensions to the property when added to those proposed would represent an addition of 54% to the ‘original’ floorspace. However, the appellant has provided evidence in the form of historic maps and photographs which appear to suggest that the amount of built development on the site has decreased since 1948; as several buildings associated with the former Heatley railway station were demolished in the 1960s after the station closed. These include a large goods/tool shed which at least in part covered the site of the existing garage. 11. Overall, having considered the arguments put by both parties, I conclude on this issue that the proposal would not be disproportionate in line with paragraph 145 c of the Framework, Therefore, I consider it does not amount to Appeal Decision APP/M0655/D/21/3266690 3 inappropriate development, and consequently the issue of very special circumstances does not arise. Openness 12. With respect to openness and the purposes of the Green Belt, given my findings, the proposal would, by definition, not have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt or the purposes of including land within it. As the proposal does not amount to inappropriate development, there is no requirement to assess if there are other considerations that amount to very special circumstances. Other Matters 13. The proposed porch would be prominent in the street scene, and the garage extension would be highly visible from the Pennine Trail. However, the design of the porch would harmonise with the existing dwelling and is of modest proportions. The addition of a pitched roof to the garage would also harmonise with the house, and the replacement of the existing flat roof would be an improvement in terms the character and appearance of the area. There would be no conflict with CS Policy QE7 which, amongst other things, requires development to reinforce local distinctiveness and enhance the character, appearance and function of the street scene, local area, and wider townscape. Conditions 14. The Council has not put forward any conditions. However, I have considered what conditions would be necessary in the light of the advice in the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the standard time condition, a condition is needed to secure compliance with the submitted plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. A matching materials condition is necessary in the interests of the appearance of the area. Conclusion 15. I have found that the proposal does not amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that there would be no other harm. I find no conflict with the development plan policies referred to, or national planning policy in the Framework. Therefore, for the reasons given above and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Nigel Harrison INSPECTOR