Slate roof conservatory

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 March 2021 by K Savage BA MPlan MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 March 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/M9496/D/21/3268018 4 Mill Farm Close, Calver S32 3WW • 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 & Mrs Warden against the decision of Peak District National Park Authority (the Authority). • The application Ref NP/DDD/0920/0809, dated 26 August 2020, was refused by notice dated 23 November 2020. • The development proposed is a slate roof conservatory. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a slate roof conservatory, at 4 Mill Farm Close, Calver S32 3WW, in accordance with the terms of the application Ref NP/DDD/0920/0809, dated 26 August 2020, and 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: Site Location Plan; Existing Elevations (Page 1); Existing Ground Floor Layout & Roof Plan (Page 2); Proposed Elevations (Page 3); Proposed Ground Floor & Roof Plan (Page 4) (all dated 25/08/2020). 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal site is located to the southern side of the village of Calver within the Peak District National Park. Paragraph 172 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, amongst other areas, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. It adds that the scale and extent of development within designated areas such as National Parks should be limited. Appeal Decision APP/M9496/D/21/3268018 2 4. No 4 is a semi-detached dwelling located at the end of a short cul-de-sac of similar properties. The proposed extension would be located to the side of the dwelling. Though described as a conservatory by the appellant, and a ‘hybrid’ structure by the Authority due, it its view, to the excessive size of the windows, the plans appear to me to show a typical lean-to side extension with solid roof and stone walls and lintels. The Authority accepts that the massing of the extension would be appropriate to the simple character and appearance of the dwelling. Its concerns relate to the extent and size of window openings. 5. Having viewed the site, I find the Authority’s concerns unfounded. Although the windows to the front and side of the extension would be deeper than those to the front elevation, these differences would be modest and would relate to the lower part of the windows which are concealed from public view from within the cul-de-sac by the recessed position of the extension and the solid fencing between the dwelling and its detached garage. From the adjacent paddock and nearby public footpath, the extension is screened by the established hedgerow on the side boundary. The French doors to the rear would be in an even more concealed position owing to the rising level of the rear garden. 6. The windows may be slightly deeper than others on the dwelling, but there is already variety to the size and alignment of windows both to front and rear, Given this context, and the lack of visibility from either the public realm or neighbouring properties, the proposal would not detract from the overall fenestration pattern. Moreover, the windows are not of a size which would produce an unacceptable solid-to-void ratio to any side of the extension. The extension would accord with the guidance of the Detailed Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document in that it takes it cue from the front elevation in terms of materials and lintel height. It is also set back and modest in scale, a point the Authority accepts. 7. Overall, the proposal would deliver a modest, well-scaled extension in appropriate materials and sympathetic fenestration. Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the area, and would conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Park. 8. Consequently, there would be no conflict with Policies GSP1 and GSP3 of the Peak District National Park Core Strategy (October 2011) or Policies DMC3 and DMH7 of the Development Management Policies (Part 2 of the Local Plan) document (May 2019), which together require development to be consistent with the National Park’s legal purposes and duty; to respect, conserve and enhance all valued characteristics of the site, including the character, style and setting of buildings and the locality; and, in the case of extensions, that they not detract from the character or appearance of, nor dominate, the original building. Conditions 9. A condition requiring development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary, to provide certainty, as is a condition requiring materials to match those used on the existing dwelling, in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. Given the details already specified on the plans, and the aforementioned materials condition, I find the additional condition suggested by the Authority requiring particular methods of construction is not necessary and I have not imposed it. Appeal Decision APP/M9496/D/21/3268018 3 Conclusion 10. There are no material considerations that indicate the application should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. K Savage INSPECTOR