Demolition/removal of two outbuildings and extension to existing dwelling to provide a garage/additional bedroom

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 26 January 2021 by Mr Martin Allen BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 February 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/R3325/D/21/3266696 Coal Furze, Blackwater Road, Buckland St. Mary, Chard, TA20 3LF • 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 P Richards against the decision of South Somerset District Council. • The application Ref 20/02436/HOU, dated 27 August 2020, was refused by notice dated 14 December 2020. • The development proposed is the demolition/removal of two outbuildings and extension to existing dwelling to provide a garage/additional bedroom. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: i) The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the area, bearing in mind the sites location within the Blackdown Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and ii) Whether the proposal would be tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling. Reasons Character and appearance 3. The appeal site comprises an existing dwelling with various attached buildings. The main dwelling is two-storey in height with a narrow span and steeply pitched roof over, while the linked building which accommodates a kitchen and living space also has a narrow span. 4. I see the merit in the layout of the proposed extension, in that it is set back substantially from the road and frontage of the dwelling, so as to provide a visual separation from the main dwelling. The inclusion of the glazed link serves to reinforce this separation. Nonetheless, the proposal is a substantial structure. Its span would be greater than that of the main dwelling as well as its additions, and the longest elevation of the extension is considerable in its length, competing with that of the host dwelling. I acknowledge that the height of the extension is not proposed to exceed that of the main house, even so it would not appear as a subservient addition. Therefore, the proposal would be an overly assertive extension to the property, harmfully competing with the proportions of the existing dwelling. The inclusion of a wide garage door would also be at odds with the small openings that are generally present and visible on the main house. Appeal Decision APP/R3325/D/21/3266696 2 5. The extension would therefore be a jarring and discordant addition to the dwelling and to the site, which I observed would be visible from the surrounding area, including from the north and east. Whilst some of these views would be partially obscured by trees, this would provide little screening during the winter months. 6. Accordingly, the proposed scheme would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host property and the area, including the Blackdown Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Thus, it would conflict with policy EQ2 of the South Somerset Local Plan (2015) (the Local Plan) and policy PD2 of the Blackdown Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan, insofar as these policies seek to ensure the design of development preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the district and that development is of an appropriate scale. The scheme would also conflict with the design guidance of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whether creation of new dwelling 7. Whilst the size of the building is noted, it is clear from the submitted details that the scheme proposes additional accommodation to be used as part of, as well as linked to, the existing property. Whilst the layout could theoretically in the future be severed to form a separate unit, this is not what has been applied for. Moreover, the layout echoes that which already exists at the site and furthermore, the creation of a separate unit would require the specific grant of planning permission. The use of the proposal as being ancillary to the existing dwelling could also be satisfactorily controlled by planning condition, if necessary. 8. Accordingly, I find that the proposal would not be tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling and thus there would be no conflict with policies SD1, SS1 and TA5 of the Local Plan, insofar as they seek to ensure development is sustainable, that new housing is located in accordance with the settlement strategy of the development plan and that the transport impacts of new development are considered. There would also be no conflict with paragraph 79 of the Framework. Other Matters 9. I note that the existing property has only a single bedroom and the proposal seeks to provide another. While I accept this would result in benefits to the occupiers of the dwelling, I am not convinced that the scheme that is before me is the only way of providing additional accommodation space. As such, this matter has little bearing on my decision. Conclusion 10. While I have found the scheme would not result in the creation of a new dwelling, this does not outweigh the harm to character and appearance I have identified. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Martin Allen INSPECTOR