Described on the planning application form as ‘Two storey side extension, single storey rear extension, single storey front (garage) extension, replacement windows throughout

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 July 2018 by Michael Evans BA MA MPhil DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3 August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P0240/D/18/3201809 87 Woodside Road, Woodside LU1 4DJ  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 Mark Oliver against the decision of Central Bedfordshire Council.  The application Ref CB/17/05935/FULL was refused by notice dated 8 February 2018.  The development proposed is described on the planning application form as ‘Two storey side extension, single storey rear extension, single storey front (garage) extension, replacement windows throughout’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issues 2. The main issues in this appeal are: - Whether the proposed development amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) and the development plan. - The effect on the openness of the Green Belt. - The effect on the character and appearance of the locality. - 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 3. The appeal concerns an end of terrace dwelling located within the Green Belt where Government policy in the Framework identifies development that would not be inappropriate. The extension or alteration of a building is not inappropriate provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Inappropriate development should Appeal Decision APP/P0240/D/18/3201809 2 not be approved except in very special circumstances, which will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 4. Policy H13 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review (LP) 2004 restricts house extensions in the Green Belt and is broadly in accordance with the Framework. Whilst Policy H13 does not identify specific numerical thresholds for extensions in the Green Belt, The Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (DG) 2014 includes a guiding principle to not add to the original building by more than 60% and the impact of the extension in terms of floorspace, volume, massing and design will be considered. 5. The Appellant refers to a Neighbourhood Plan Background Evidence and Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report and a Central Bedfordshire and Luton Green Belt Study. However, these are not planning policy documents against which I must consider this appeal. The Appellant also questions the inclusion of Woodside within the Green Belt. However, the extent of the Green Belt is a matter for the development plan process and not for me to consider in the context of a section 78 appeal where I must apply the relevant policies identified above. Moreover, these policies apply regardless of matters such as the village character of the locality and other houses in the vicinity. 6. There is no evidence of any previous enlargement so that for the purposes of assessing proportionality the existing dwelling comprises the original building. The Council calculates that the enlargement now proposed would result in a floorspace increase of 86%. A footprint increase of 78% is also indicated but this is not one of the factors identified in the DG for assessing the increase in size and if there would be development at first floor level where there are existing ground floor parts, as in this case, would understate the increase in size. 7. Nevertheless, both of these calculations would significantly exceed the DG figure of 60%. The Appellant suggests that there would be a 60% increase in footprint and an additional 80% of floor area but unlike the Council no detailed calculations have been provided. For this reason alone the Council’s figures are more credible, although an 80% increase in floor area would exceed the threshold by a third anyway. Moreover, the width of the dwelling at two storey height would virtually double, resulting in a fairly substantial increase in built volume and massing. 8. Due to the size of the proposed enlargement I have no doubt that the appeal scheme would result in disproportionate additions to the original building. It is therefore concluded that the proposal would comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the Framework and development plan. 9. The Appellant suggests that significant development has taken place in Woodside Road since 1947 with reference to an Ordnance Survey plan and more recent aerial photographs. Reference is also made to specific development such as two dwellings next to 97 Woodside Road. It is also suggested that extensions have been built at 97, with the latter property having a 147% increase in floor area. It is also said that all the properties in the host terrace have been the subject of considerable enlargement. However, without the full details and background to any particular case no meaningful comparison Appeal Decision APP/P0240/D/18/3201809 3 can be made with the current proposal and there is nothing to demonstrate that the Council’s decision making has been unreasonably inconsistent. Openness of Green Belt 10.It is explained in the Framework that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence. The openness of the Green Belt results from an absence of built development. By significantly increasing the footprint of the dwelling and building at first floor level, additional built volume would be created where there currently is none. In consequence, the openness of the Green Belt would be materially reduced and therefore harmed. This would occur regardless of factors such as the relatively large plot size, front garden, distance of the dwelling from the road and the presence of other properties in the vicinity. Character and appearance 11.There is a fairly large gap between the single storey lean-to and first floor flank wall of the host dwelling to the side of the adjacent property. This is reflected in a number of other fairly similar spaces between properties in the vicinity, which give a relatively spacious and open character. 12.However, because of its width the extension would bring two storey development unacceptably close to the boundary, detracting from this open and spacious character, while appearing relatively cramped. The Appellant suggests that the one metre gap to the side boundary would comply with the DG. 13.DG section 7.03.06 refers to semi-detached and detached properties but the gaps between dwellings can be of value to the streetscene in relation to terraced dwellings, as in this case, and I see no reason not to apply this advice. Moreover, this indicates that one metre is a minimum distance and could be larger if properties have wider spaces between them, which I consider applies in this instance. 14.The two storey side addition would also be of excessive width relative to the host dwelling, creating a visually discordant relationship readily apparent from the street. This would not be significantly mitigated by the set-back from the front of the host dwelling and down from its ridge. Rather than appearing subservient, the addition would be overly dominant, with this being emphasised by the forward projection of the integral garage. 15.Due to these factors, the character and appearance of the locality would be harmed despite matters such as the varied designs and styles of properties in the street and the proposed use of suitable materials. There would be conflict with the aim of LP Policy BE8 to ensure that new development harmonises with the local surroundings and enhances or reinforces the character and local distinctiveness of the area. The development would also be at odds with the intention of Policy H8 that extensions should take account of the character of the site and surroundings. It would also be contrary to the advice in the DG that the width of extensions should be significantly less than that of the main house. Other considerations 16.The Appellant claims that the host dwelling is unusable for the main reason that there is a tight and steep staircase enabling access to the first floor that is Appeal Decision APP/P0240/D/18/3201809 4 hazardous and does not comply with the Building Regulations. At my site visit I did not consider it particularly difficult to use and no technical evidence has been submitted to demonstrate specific deficiencies in relation to the Building Regulations. Despite the introduction of a new staircase in the appeal scheme, I also note that it would be retained. 17.It is also suggested that the kitchen and utility areas are unduly narrow, with the kitchen having an outlook facing the gable of the adjacent dwelling. The second bedroom is fairly small but had a single bed in it that was made up at the time of my site visit with space to reach it, so that it was clearly capable of being used. Other matters such as a desire for a modern bathroom and kitchen are stated. 18.Nevertheless, I am not persuaded that the quality of the accommodation could not be significantly improved without enlargement of the nature, size and scale now proposed. The Appellant suggests that the proposed scheme is justified on the basis of financial viability but no valuation evidence has been provided to support this claim. While the existing property is of a fairly modest size, I am not therefore satisfied that this matter should be afforded more than modest weight. 19.This is a case where the relevant development plan policies are not out of date. As a result of this and because of the conflict with the development plan the appeal scheme cannot benefit from the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in the Framework. Conclusion 20.Harm would be caused to the Green Belt due to inappropriate development and a loss of openness. In accordance with the Framework substantial weight should be afforded to the harm to the Green Belt. Additional harm would be caused to the character and appearance of the locality to which I afford significant weight. Due to the conclusions reached above, other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harmful effect of the development. There can, in consequence, be no very special circumstances and the proposal would be contrary to the Framework policies concerning the Green Belt. There would also be conflict with the development plan. It is therefore determined that the appeal fails. M Evans INSPECTOR