Retrospective existing outbuildings

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 June 2018 by G Powys Jones MSc FRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 18th July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P1940/D/18/3200001 The Garth, London Road, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 1JR  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 Iven Goh against the decision of Three Rivers District Council.  The application Ref 17/2456/RSP, dated 10 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 17 January 2018.  The development is described in the application form as retrospective existing outbuildings. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the retention of existing outbuildings at The Garth, London Road, Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire, WD3 1JR in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 17/2456/RSP, dated 10 November 2017, subject to the following condition: The tree house hereby permitted shall be dismantled and removed from the site within 12 months of the date of this permission. Preliminary matters 2. Notwithstanding the description of the development contained in the application form, the appellant, in effect, wishes to retain three buildings or structures built without the necessary planning permission. Firstly, a building has been erected to enclose a previously existing outdoor swimming pool; secondly, and alongside the swimming pool is an open canopy structure which acts as a barbeque and sitting out area; the third element is a tree house designed for children’s play. Main issues 3. The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt (GB). Accordingly, the main issues are: - Whether the proposed development is inappropriate or not inappropriate development in the GB in the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and local development plan policy; - The effect on openness and the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Appeal Decision APP/P1940/A/13/2198557 2 Reasons Inappropriate or not inappropriate development 4. Policy CP11 of the Three Rivers District Council Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (CS) contains a general presumption against inappropriate development that would not preserve the openness of the GB. 5. The Council’s Local Plan (LP) incorporating its Development Management Policies includes policy DM2, which provides that within the GB approval will not be given for new buildings other than those specified in national policy or other relevant guidance. However, this policy also provides, with reference to the Framework, that certain forms of development, including ancillary buildings, may be supported where certain criteria are met. The 3 criteria in question are set out in the body of the policy. 6. The Council does not dispute that the development subject of the appeal fall to be considered as ancillary buildings; indeed, it tested its’ acceptability under the terms of LP policy DM2’s criteria. However, I detect some tension between some of the provisions of this policy and the guidance provided in the Framework. 7. Nonetheless, the policy draws considerable significance in my determination having regard to section 70(2) of the Town And Country Planning Act 1990 and section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, not least because the policy forms part of the development plan and was adopted following the publication of the Framework, and has been found on examination to be ‘sound’. 8. Accordingly, a judgment as to whether the development is inappropriate or not inappropriate will be made on the application of LP policy DM2’s criteria relating to ancillary buildings. I shall do this in the next section of this decision. Character, appearance & openness 9. The appeal site is comprised of a dwelling set in substantial grounds on London Road (A404) on the southern outskirts of the town. Here, development takes a ribbon form with the dwellings and their gardens fronting the main road. A golf course is laid out to the rear of the dwellings. Most of the properties are well enclosed, and the appeal dwelling is no exception. It displays high walls on the frontage and several trees and other vegetation provide effective screening. 10. The first criterion of LP policy DM2 (d) requires development to be: ‘of a scale and design clearly subordinate to the dwelling and of a height and bulk such that the building would not adversely affect the openness of the Green Belt.’ 11. The Council agrees that the tree house is compliant with this criterion, but considers that the swimming pool and open canopy structure fail to comply. I do not share the Council’s assessment in this regard. I found that by reason of its scale and mass the main dwelling visually and physically dominated the site. The outbuildings, in particular the swimming pool building and open canopy which have a low profile, are set on slightly lower land and are acceptably and clearly subordinate to the dwelling. 12. As the Council correctly points out, openness would be affected in the sense that the buildings have been formed where none previously existed. I note the Appeal Decision APP/P1940/A/13/2198557 3 Council’s reference to the John Turner case in the officer report on the application, and the reason for drawing attention to it. However, the court in that case also recognised that the question of visual impact is implicitly part of the concept of openness of the Green Belt. In a subsequent case, Goodman v SSCLG [2017] EWHC 947 (Admin), it was held that it is relevant to take into account visual perception as a factor which may reduce the spatial harm from the effect of a development on the openness of the Green Belt. 13. The officer report contains a section where the design and visual impact of the outbuildings are assessed. It concluded that: …it is not considered that the development would result in any significant adverse impact on the character or appearance of the host dwelling, street scene or area and the development would be acceptable in this regard. 14. I share that conclusion. Indeed, such is the effectiveness of the man-made and natural screening around the site, that the outbuildings would have no noticeable visual impact on the public realm and surrounding area. In terms of visual perception alone, the outbuildings clearly have not harmed the openness of the GB. 15. On balance, taking all considerations into account, including the spatial aspects and visual impact, I conclude that the openness of the GB has not been harmed. 16. The second criterion of LP policy DM2 (d) requires development to: be sited in an appropriate location that would not be prominent in the landscape and would not result in the spread of urbanising development. 17. As has already been established, the development that has taken place is not prominent in the landscape. The Council views the development as comprising the spread of urbanising development. However, the buildings are all comprised within an established residential curtilage, which itself forms part of a ribbon of residential, urban development. The development to my mind could not reasonably be classified as one that has resulted in the spread of urbanising development. 18. The third and final criterion of LP policy DM2 (d) requires development to: avoid features normally associated with the use of a building as a dwelling such as dormer windows. 19. The Council takes no issue on this aspect of the policy. I found the design of the three outbuildings to be perfectly acceptable. Overall Conclusions and Planning Balance 20. Earlier, I said that a judgment as to whether the development is inappropriate or not inappropriate would be made on the application of LP policy DM2’s criteria relating to ancillary buildings. Having applied the policy’s criteria I find that the works carried out represents development not inappropriate in the GB. I also find that the openness of the GB has not been harmed. I am also satisfied that the development has not impaired any of the purposes of the GB set out in paragraph 80 of the Framework. Appeal Decision APP/P1940/A/13/2198557 4 Other matters 21. The Council takes the view that insufficient information was provided at the application stage to enable it to properly assess the impact of the development on trees. I looked at this aspect during my site visit and found no evidence that the swimming pool building or open canopy had or was likely to harm the health of any nearby trees. 22. I can better understand the Council’s concerns in respect of the tree house, which is wedged between the trunks of two protected trees. However, most of the temporary structure’s weight is directed to the ground via vertical timber members, with very light fixings to the trees. I could discern no visible signs of damage to the trees or any other indication that they were stressed. 23. However, the trees concerned are attractive specimens and fully deserving of preservation. In the circumstances, I intend to grant a temporary planning permission for the tree house. This will enable the trees’ condition to be monitored and reviewed should a future planning application be submitted at the expiry of the temporary period. 24. The Council has suggested other conditions, two of which I consider unnecessary since the development has already been carried out. A further condition is proposed requiring the development permitted to be ‘maintained’ in accordance with the approved plans. I find the use of this word to be ambiguous. In my view this condition fails two of the tests set out in paragraph 206 of the Framework, namely the tests of necessity and precision. 25. All other matters raised in the representations have been taken into account, but none is of such strength or significance as to outweigh the considerations that led me to my conclusions. G Powys Jones INSPECTOR