Raising of the roof over existing garage to increase headroom within bedroom one above

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 31 August 2018 by Martin H Seddon BSc MPhil DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/B1930/D/18/3204501 1 Lovett Road, London Colney, St Albans, Hertfordshire, AL2 1UE  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 and Mrs Walsh against the decision of St Albans City and District Council.  The application Ref: 5/18/0567, dated 1 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 1 May 2018.  The development proposed is raising of the roof over existing garage to increase headroom within bedroom one above. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issues 2. The appeal building is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The main issues are:  whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and development plan policy;  the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and,  the effect upon the character and appearance of the area and historic parkland. Reasons 3. No.1 Lovett Road is a two storey detached dwelling located at the end of a cul- de-sac in the Napsbury Park development. It is in a prominent position, being next to open space and a footpath. Although part of the former hospital site redevelopment, it is outside the Napsbury Park Conservation Area. Whether inappropriate development in the Green Belt 4. The proposal involves increasing the height of the roof for a first floor bedroom above a garage. The revised National Planning Policy Framework was published on 24 July 2018. I have taken the revised Framework into account in determining this appeal. In view of its content compared to that of the previous Framework, I consider that to do so would not prejudice the interests of the main parties. Appeal Decision APP/B1930/D/18/3204501 2 5. The revised Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The extension of an existing building is not, however, inappropriate provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. There is no definition of ‘disproportionate additions’ in the Framework. The ‘original building’ is as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after 1948, as it was built originally. 6. The national policy advice in the Framework has to be read together with the relevant development plan which in this case includes the St Albans District Local Plan Review 1994. The Council has referred to Local Plan Review policy 1 which defines the Green Belt and restricts certain development. Local Plan Review policy 13 concerns extensions in the Green Belt. Local Plan Review policy 72 requires house extensions to take account of their context, including the scale and character of their surroundings and compatibility with the building. These development plan policies are generally consistent with the Framework. 7. The Council estimates that the proposal would result in an increase in floorspace of around 0.7 m² (just over 1%) and an increase in volume of around 40.66 m³. The appellant disputes these figures and advises that the floorspace would not increase and the increase in volume would be around 34 m³. These figures are within the Council’s limits of a 20-40% increase in floorspace and a 90-180 m³ increase in volume as stated in table 2 of its supplementary planning guidance: Residential Extensions and Replacement Dwellings in the Green Belt. The Council accepts that the small scale of these increases at the appeal building would normally be allowable for extensions within the Green Belt. 8. An extension of the form proposed would normally not constitute a disproportionate addition to the original dwelling. However, the siting of the proposal within the historic setting of Napsbury Park is also a material consideration. Effect upon the openness of the Green Belt 9. The location of the appeal building means that the proposed extension will be prominent in views from the adjacent open space and from the nearby public footpath. The increased bulk and scale of the roof would result in moderate harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The effect on the character and appearance of the area and historic parkland 10. The appeal site is separated from the Conservation Area boundary by a small number of dwellings and open space. 11. Local Plan Review policy 139 indicates that the impact on the Green Belt of the redevelopment of the Napsbury Hospital site shall be no greater than that of the existing site. This policy is consistent with paragraph 145(g) of the Framework which advises that exceptions to Green Belt restrictions include limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development. Appeal Decision APP/B1930/D/18/3204501 3 12. To allow the appeal proposal could result in similar applications to raise the roof of other dwellings in the area, including those in the Conservation Area, thereby cumulatively adding to the impact of development in the Green Belt and harm to its open character, contrary to Local Plan Review policy 139 and the Framework. Other considerations 13. The appellants submit that the proposed design will remove the inappropriate UPVC fascia and soffits and replace these with a parapet wall to match the existing dwelling and the surrounding area. In addition, that the proposed detailing will enhance the design and make the dwelling more in keeping with the surrounding area. 14. The appellants have referred to development that has been allowed at No.3 Rosemary Drive, Nos.1 and 55 Azalea Close, and No.21 Farm Crescent, indicating that some forms of extension are allowable in the Napsbury Park area without harmfully impacting upon the openness of the Green Belt. However, these examples are not directly comparable to the development proposed at the appeal site, or its context as a prominent building next to open space at the end of a cul-de-sac. 15. The appellants have also drawn my attention to a retrospective application for a porch and extension to a canopy roof at the appeal building which was allowed by the Council. The appellants consider that the Council was inconsistent in that case by allowing an extension of a greater floor area than the appeal proposal and a proposal that would be readily applicable elsewhere. The appellants have produced an assessment of the possibility of the appeal proposal being replicated elsewhere within Napsbury Park. Although it is submitted that opportunities would be limited there would still be around 32 dwellings that could benefit. I consider that this is not an insignificant number, and whilst the degree of roof extension could be limited there could be erosion of the established principle within policy 139 that the impact on the Green Belt of the redevelopment of the Napsbury Hospital site shall be no greater than that of the existing site. Conclusion 16. The claimed benefits from the proposal would not outweigh the harm to the openness of the Green Belt, consequential potential harm to the historic park location and the conflict with the Framework and relevant development plan policies, including Local Plan Review policy 139. 17. I have taken all other matters raised into account. However, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Martin H Seddon INSPECTOR