Single storey ground floor extension (partly over and creating access to lower ground level to rear) and internal alterations

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 18 May 2021 by M Chalk BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 May 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/B1930/D/21/3268180 2 Radlett Road, Frogmore, St Albans, AL2 2LF • 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 Adam McAuliffe against the decision of St Albans City Council. • The application Ref 5/20/2118, dated 9 September 2020, was refused by notice dated 4 December 2020. • The development proposed is single storey ground floor extension (partly over and creating access to lower ground level to rear) and internal alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey ground floor extension (partly over and creating access to lower ground level to rear) and internal alterations at 2 Radlett Road, Frogmore, St. Albans, AL2 2LF in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 5/2020/2118, dated 9 September 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: 11310/100 Revision A, 11310/101, 11310/102, 11310/103, 11310/104 and 11310/105. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used on the existing building. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: • Whether the development proposed would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies; and, • The effect on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons Whether inappropriate development 3. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate development, save for certain exceptions. One of these exceptions is for 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. Appeal Decision APP/B1930/D/21/3268180 2 4. The cumulative scale of the existing and proposed extensions to the original house is a matter of dispute between the main parties, with the appellant contending that the figure lies at about 45% of the floor area of the original house and the Council claiming that it would amount to around an increase of 127%. Figures given with the 1990 application for side extensions to the original house indicate a 33% increase in volume over the original house, and this does not appear to have been contested. While there is a difference between volume and area, the volume of extensions does not indicate a disproportionate addition at that time. 5. It appears that the discrepancy between the Council’s and appellant’s figures arises principally from the absence of the lower ground floor rooms from the 1990 plan. The patio on which the proposed extension would be sited is shown on the plan submitted with that application, although not the lower ground floor rooms beneath it. However, the plan refers to a retaining wall and shows the staircase leading down to the garden, which is at a substantially lower level than the ground floor of the house. I therefore consider it likely that the lower rooms were in place at that time, albeit not shown on the plan as they were unconnected to the house. Counting the lower ground floor as part of the original house, and even allowing for the later addition of the spiral staircase, I find that the scale of additions over and above the size of the original building is likely to be closer to the appellant’s figure than the Council’s. 6. There is no definition of what amounts to disproportionate additions in the Framework. Policy 13 of the St Albans District Local Plan Review 1994 (the LP) says that extensions to houses in the Green Belt may be permitted unless the scale or visual impact upon the building as originally constructed would create a building of significantly larger or different character, but no precise definition of significantly larger is given. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance document on Residential Extensions and Replacement Dwellings in the Green Belt (the SPG) suggests a number of criteria against which extensions in the Green Belt can be assessed, including a maximum floorspace increase of 40% or 330 cubic metres. However, this is guidance and uses as a basis the Class A permitted development allowance in place at the time of its adoption in 2004, which differ significantly from the present allowance. It is therefore a matter of planning judgment whether the appeal proposal would amount to disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 7. The extension would be modestly scaled. Even when taken with the previous extensions, it would only result in a very limited increase in the cumulative scale of extensions to the house. That would not, in this instance, amount to disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building 8. The appeal proposal would therefore not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would accord with Policies 1 and 13 of the LP which require that extensions in the Green Belt not create a building of significantly larger character and with the criteria of the Framework which are set out above. Character and appearance 9. The extension would be modest in size and positioned at the rear of the house with limited visibility beyond its immediate surroundings. It would be a flat- roofed structure, subordinate to the existing house and set back from the edge of the raised patio area. Appeal Decision APP/B1930/D/21/3268180 3 10. The extension would be seen from the rear as a flat-roofed first floor addition to the house. However, given its modest size and peripheral siting on the rear elevation of the house it would not be a prominent feature in the site or the wider area. 11. The appeal proposal would not therefore cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. It would accord with Policies 13, 69 and 72 of the LP the requirements of which include that development have an adequately high standard of design and that the style of extensions be appropriate to the original building. Conditions 12. I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council. I have imposed the standard condition relating to commencement of the development. In the interests of ensuring certainty, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. I have also imposed a condition requiring that the external materials of construction match those of the existing dwelling, to ensure consistency in the overall appearance of the house. Conclusion 13. For the reasons set out above, the appeal succeeds. M Chalk INSPECTOR