Two storey brick and oak frame extension to the existing cottage and a new roof and brick cladding to the existing extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 May 2018 by Andrew McCormack BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8th June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/C2741/D/18/3200800 Orchard Cottage, Moor Lane, Bishopthorpe, York YO23 2UF  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 G Wilkinson and Mrs J Sunderland against the decision of City of York Council.  The application Ref 17/01259/FUL, dated 26 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 8 March 2018.  The development proposed is two storey brick and oak frame extension to the existing cottage and a new roof and brick cladding to the existing extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The relevant local planning policies in this case have been identified as Policies GP1 (Design), GB1 (Development in the Green Belt) and H7 (Residential Extensions) of the City of York Draft Local Plan 2005 (the DLP) and Policies GB1 (Development in the Green Belt) and D11 (Extensions and Alterations to Existing Buildings) of the emerging City of York Publication Draft Local Plan 2018 (the PDLP). The policies in the DLP pre-date the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and as such, the Council indicates that those policies should have limited weight except where they accord with the Framework. Furthermore, policies within the PDLP also have limited weight given the stage reached in the plan-making process. In light of this, the Framework is the starting point in assessing this appeal. 3. Notwithstanding the above, having carefully considered these matters, I find there to be consistency between the identified DLP policies and the Framework. As such, those DLP policies have due weight. In terms of the PDLP policies, I can give only limited weight due to the stage reached by the PDLP in the plan-making process. Nevertheless, I find the policies within the PDLP, as drafted, to be broadly consistent with the Framework. Therefore, they are material to the determination of the appeal. In addition, I have had regard to the relevance of the Council’s House Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD). Main Issues 4. As the proposal is within the Green Belt, I consider the main issues to be:  whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt;  the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it; Appeal Decision APP/C2741/D/18/3200800 2  the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and  if the development is inappropriate, 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 Inappropriate development 5. Paragraphs 89 and 90 of the Framework set out the categories of development which may be regarded as not inappropriate in the Green Belt, subject to certain conditions. New buildings within the Green Belt are inappropriate unless, amongst other things, they are extensions or alterations of a building which does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 6. The proposal seeks to construct a two-storey side extension to the south elevation of the existing cottage, replace the roof of the front porch with matching tiles and create a small gable above the front door. These alterations and additions would predominantly impact on the south and east elevations of the property. The Council states that the proposed scheme would significantly increase in the footprint of the building and would be a disproportionate addition to the original dwelling. As a result, the Council determined that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. 7. The appellant states that the Council has referred to the measurement of an increase of 25%, as set out in the supporting text of Policy GB4 of the DLP, as the definitive threshold for determining the acceptability of a proposal in terms of its proportionality to the original building. It is argued that such a quantitative approach to that assessment is not appropriate and should not form the basis of deciding whether a proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt. 8. The Council has indicated that Policy GB4 of the DLP should only be afforded limited weight in this appeal. Notwithstanding this, the Council argues that the use of the 25% increase threshold is a reasonable guide to assist in determining the impact of a proposed extension or alteration to a building with regard to its inappropriateness in accordance with the Framework. 9. From what I have seen and read, I note that the proposal would represent a 36% increase in the footprint of the building. In my view this would be a significant increase and would also be significantly above the threshold identified in Policy GB4 of the DLP. Whilst I acknowledge the comments that the policy should have limited weight, I find that the use of the 25% threshold does provide a reasonable benchmark to assess the proportionality of a proposed extension or alteration to its original building and thus its appropriateness in the Green Belt. As such, I have given it moderate weight in my decision making. 10. I appreciate that the appellant has reduced the size and scale of the proposed development from previous submissions. However, I must assess the appeal proposal before me on its own merits and circumstances. Having done so, I find that the two-storey scheme would be sizeable in its context and would add significant width to the property. As such, given the indicated increase in the footprint of the property and its associated likely increase in volume, I find that the scheme would be a disproportionate extension to the original dwelling. As a result, I conclude that the proposed scheme would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Therefore, it would not comply with Policies GB1 and GB4 of the DLP, Policy GB1 of the PDLP and Paragraph 89 of the Framework. Appeal Decision APP/C2741/D/18/3200800 3 Green Belt openness and purposes 11. A fundamental aim of Green Belt policy, as set out in Paragraph 79 of the Framework, is to keep land permanently open. The proposal would result in an increase in built development where there is presently none. Whilst the footprint of the proposed extension would be relatively small, it would be significant in the context of the original property and its surroundings. Furthermore, it would be positioned in a prominent and visible location and therefore its scale and massing would have a significant visual impact on the surrounding Green Belt. Moreover, the two-storey proposal would not only increase the footprint of the property, it would also be likely to substantially increase its volume as well as significantly increasing the overall width of the building. 12. Therefore, in light of the above, I find that the proposal would result in a loss of Green Belt openness. Whilst the impact on openness would be relatively limited, it would lead to the encroachment of development into the open countryside. As such, it would have an adverse impact on the related Green Belt purpose. The Framework is clear that any Green Belt harm should be given substantial weight in decision making. Accordingly, I have taken this into account in determining this appeal. As a result, having had due regard to all of the above, in my assessment the proposal would be contrary to Policy GB4 of the DLP, Policy GB1 of the PDLP and the relevant Green Belt guidance within the Framework. Character and appearance 13. From what I have seen and read, the appeal proposal relates to a semi-detached cottage known as Orchard Cottage, which is situated within a small agricultural settlement comprising five properties. The group of properties is located on Moor Lane to the west of Bishopthorpe, is surrounded by open countryside and lies within the Green Belt. Nonetheless, other small clusters of housing are located along Moor Lane. The position of the host property on its plot results in its rear elevation being close to the rear boundary of the site with the courtyard around which adjacent properties are situated. As such, the garden area is to the side and front of the host property. To the east is Appleton Road which is around 200 metres from the appeal property. Due to the open nature of the surrounding countryside, the appeal site is readily visible from Appleton Road. 14. The appellant states that the proposed extension would be set down from the main roof of the property and would have a lower eaves height. It is argued that this would attempt to give the proposal a subservient appearance to the host dwelling. Whilst I note that the appeal proposal has been reduced in scale from a previous submission, I find that the proposed gable to the front elevation of the property would not appear subservient to the rest of the property. Furthermore, the height and scale of the proposal, combined with the large amount of glazing at first floor level, would dominate the existing front gable. As such, it would detract from the traditional appearance of the original property and the adjoining properties. 15. Moreover, I find that the proposal would fail to reflect the simple rural character and appearance of the host building and its surroundings and would not relate well to the existing cottage. In addition, due to its significant width and height, the proposed extension would result in undue attention being drawn to it. As a result, it would be a dominant and prominent addition to the property which would be at odds with the appeal building and its surroundings. 16. The appellant argues that the design, size and scale of the proposed development has been carefully considered and represents the most realistic, practical and appropriate solution to meeting the needs of the appellant at the property. This, it Appeal Decision APP/C2741/D/18/3200800 4 is stated, is the reason why the proposal is predominantly to the south of the host property and is two storeys in height. 17. I have had due regard to the appellant’s extensive comments on design matters relating to the proposal and also regarding the consistency of decision making in relation to proposals in the local area. I also note the appellant’s justification for the approach taken with regard to such matters. Whilst I appreciate these concerns regarding the consistency of decisions, I do not have full details of these other schemes. Notwithstanding this, and in any event, I must consider the appeal proposal before me on its own merits and confirm that this has been my approach. 18. As such, in my view, the proposal would not appear subservient to the host property. It would result in a disproportionate and dominant addition to the building and would not reflect the traditional rural character and appearance of the cottage and adjacent buildings. Furthermore, whilst the materials proposed would match the host property and represent a more traditional construction, based on the evidence, I find that the proposed scheme would not positively relate to the host building in its scale and proportion. 19. Due to the increased width of the property and the significant design features of the proposal, such as the large first floor glazing and gable to the front elevation, I find that the scheme would unduly draw attention to the new extension. As such, it would become the visually dominant part of the building. Therefore, the design, detailing and scale of the proposed extension would result in a visually awkward juxtaposition between existing and new elements, particularly in terms of the front elevation of the building. This would detract from the original features of the cottage. Moreover, the open position of the property and the proposal and its visibility from surrounding public areas, most notably Appleton Road, would only exacerbate its visual impact on the character and appearance of the property and its surroundings. 20. Having taken account of the above and other material considerations, I find that the proposed scheme would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. It would therefore be contrary to Policies GP1 and H7 of the DLP, the emerging Policy D11 of the PDLP, and the relevant guidance within the Framework and the Council’s SPD. Amongst other matters, these policies and guidance seek to ensure development is of a high quality design which respects and positively responds to its immediate architectural context, local character and history in terms of its detailing, scale and proportion. Very special circumstances 21. I have noted the appellant’s circumstances in relation to the proposal and their need for additional living accommodation at the property. Whilst I appreciate this, there is no substantive evidence put forward to demonstrate the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal in this location. In light of this, and on the basis of what I have seen and read, I find there to be no other material considerations which would clearly outweigh the substantial harm I have identified. As a result, I conclude that very special circumstances do not exist in this case. Conclusion 22. The Framework indicates that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Although the effects on openness and the Green Belt purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment would be moderate, substantial weight is to be given to any Green Belt harm. Furthermore, very special circumstances will not Appeal Decision APP/C2741/D/18/3200800 5 exist unless the harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 23. Based on the evidence submitted, I find that the proposed scheme would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would have an adverse impact on Green Belt openness and its related purposes. Furthermore, it would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the host property and its surroundings. Consequently, I conclude that the substantial weight given to Green Belt harm would not be outweighed by other considerations in this case. Moreover, there is no substantive evidence to demonstrate that very special circumstances exist which would be necessary to justify the proposal in the Green Belt. 24. Therefore, for the reasons stated and having had regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Andrew McCormack INSPECTOR