Extension to front of garage and conversion of existing garage to habitable space

Appeal Decision APP/M0655/D/18/3200750 1 Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 August 2018 by W Johnson BA (Hons) DipTP DipUDR MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 31 October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M0655/D/18/3200750 61 Claydon Gardens, Rixton-With-Glazebrook, Warrington WA3 6FA  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 Mrs Julie Houston against the decision of Warrington Borough Council.  The application Ref 2017/31510, dated 30 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 25 January 2018.  The development proposed is the extension to front of garage and conversion of existing garage to habitable space. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the extension to front of garage and conversion of existing garage to habitable space at 61 Claydon Gardens, Rixton-With-Glazebrook, Warrington, WA3 6FA, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref:2017/31510, dated 30 October 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following approved plan: 64/17/BP; 64/17/2 and 64/17/3. 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. Procedural Matter 2. A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 24 July 2018. However, the parties made limited reference to the Framework in their submissions and I do not consider that the changes or revisions significantly affect the determination of this appeal. Consequently, it was not necessary to revert to the parties for further comment. Main Issue 3. The main issues are:  Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and relevant development plan policies; Appeal Decision APP/M0655/D/18/3200750 2  if it is inappropriate development, its effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and,  whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Reasons 4. The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It goes on to state that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. In addition, the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt subject to a number of exceptions as set out in paragraph 145. One of the exceptions cited is the extension of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the ‘original building’. Policy CS5 and Policy CC2 of the Local Plan Core Strategy, July 2014 (the Core Strategy conform to the thrust of national Green Belt policy in these respects. 5. There is no definition within the Framework of size or disproportionate. However, the Council refers to its Supplementary Planning guidance - Green Belt, section G for Extensions within the Green Belt, 2003 (the SPG). This document states that as a guideline the Council generally considers an increase of more than a third (both previous and proposed extensions), added to the original dwelling within a green Belt area would be disproportionate. 6. The Council’s evidence on this matter in the Officer Report is that when combined with previous extensions to the original building the proposed development would result in an increase of 75.1%. In a later email1 received by the appellant from the Council, it clarified that the figure should be 49.64%, as opposed to the 75.1% originally quoted, when taking into account the garage as part of the original building, and that the extension would still be in in excess of a ‘third’. 7. However, the figure quoted in the email1 includes calculations by the Council only relating to the footprint of the original dwelling. The SPG refers to an increase in floorspace. While there is no explanation of whether this should be total floorspace or ground floor only, it seems reasonable to me, in this instance, that the calculation should relate to the total floorspace of the original dwelling. Using figures supplied by the appellant, which include a measurement of 64sqm for the ground floor of the house, the proposed extension, together with the later conservatory would result in an increase of 27% above the total floorspace of the original dwelling. Although the Council consider that the ground floor of the house measures 57.2 sq m, this small discrepancy would not make a significant difference to the percentage increase. Therefore, the extension would be in accordance with the SPG. 8. Furthermore, reliance on floorspace only has limitations in that it takes no account of height, volume and bulk. The extension would be of a modest size that would be single storey and integrate well with the existing garage and dwelling, having limited visual effect. Therefore, based on the evidence before me the scheme would not be a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original dwelling either in its own right or in terms of its cumulative effect taken with the previous extension. Appeal Decision APP/M0655/D/18/3200750 3 9. For all of these reasons, I therefore conclude that the scheme would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and relevant development plan policies, and would not conflict with Policy CS5 or Policy CC2 of the Core Strategy. It also accords with the related guidance contained within the SPD, and complies with paragraph 145 of the Framework, which seeks the extension or alteration of a building not to result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 10. Accordingly, there is no requirement for me to assess the impact of the extension on the openness of the Green Belt or to consider whether very special circumstances exist to justify the development. Other Matters 11. No objections have been raised by the Council in respect to any other matters, including, amongst other things, highway safety, design and appearance, ecology or living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. I too agree with the Council and find the proposal acceptable in these matters. Conditions 12. I attach a condition specifying the approved plans, for certainty. A condition to ensure that the facing materials would match those present on the existing property has been included in the interests of the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Conclusion 13. For the above reasons, and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed. Wayne Johnson INSPECTOR