Extension and alterations to existing dwelling house

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 August 2018 by Mrs J Wilson BA BTP MRTPI DMS Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28th September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/D0121/D/18/3205583 The Gables, Bridge Road, Leigh Woods, Bristol BS8 3PB  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 Razavi against the decision of North Somerset Council.  The application Ref 17/P/2476/F, dated 9 October 2017, was refused by notice dated 26 April 2018.  The development proposed is extension and alterations to existing dwelling house. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 24 July 2018 and replaces the first Framework published in March 2012. The main parties have been provided with an opportunity to comment on the revised Framework and its relevance to the determination of this appeal. References in this decision reflect the revised Framework. Main Issues 3. The main issues are:  Whether the development is inappropriate in the Green Belt, having regard to the Framework;  The effect of the development on openness;  The effect of the development on the setting of heritage assets, namely; Clifton Lodge (Grade II) and the Ashton Court Estate; a Grade I Listed Building and a Grade II* registered Historic Park and Garden.  Whether the development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Leigh Woods Conservation Area (CA).  Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, or effect on openness, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations. If so, would this amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal. Appeal Decision APP/D0121/D/18/3205583 2 Reasons Whether the development is inappropriate in the Green Belt 4. Paragraph 145 of the Framework indicates that an extension to an existing building within the Green Belt would not be inappropriate providing that it “does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building”. Policy DM12 of the North Somerset Council Development Management Policies – Sites and Policies Plan Part 1 (NSCDMP) adopts a broadly similar approach. 5. Whilst the Framework and the development plan do not set out precisely how this should be assessed, proportionality is primarily an objective test based on size. However this does not mean by footprint alone. The Council state that even though the floor space increase would be around 30%, and less than the 50% normally considered acceptable the increase in height would be disproportionate. The appellant argues that there is no increase in footprint of the main house and therefore no effect on openness, a matter to which I shall return. 6. The building is situated in a prominent and clearly visible position where the addition of a further storey of accommodation over the tallest and most visible element would have an effect which I consider would be obtrusive. The fact that other three storey elements can be seen elsewhere along the road is acknowledged however in this particular location the significant increase in height would result in disproportionality which would be emphasised by the sensitive position and prominence of the building. Consequently the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt which, by definition, is harmful and should not be permitted other than in very special circumstances. Effect on Openness 7. The Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt Policy is to prevent urban sprawl and keep land permanently open. It is an established principal that the openness of the Green Belt has a spatial as well as a visual aspect. The appellant suggests that as the extension is confined to the existing house and does not affect the footprint there would be no impact on the openness of the Green Belt. I disagree. The proposal involves an addition to the most prominent element of the building which results in the ridge height increasing by over 3 metres above which the chimneys would add further prominent elements in a location where both parties accept that the existing building is visible. 8. The Council refer to a previous appeal decision1 in respect of the effect on openness. In that particular case it was concluded that even though a site was within the confines of Leigh Woods it would not render the loss of openness to be any less significant when compared to other locations in the Green Belt. In this case I also find that the proposal would result in a loss of openness to which substantial weight must be attributed. 1 APP/D0121/A/14/2218388 Appeal Decision APP/D0121/D/18/3205583 3 Effect on the setting of heritage assets 9. The property lies opposite Clifton Lodge which functions as one of the main entrances to the Grade I listed Ashton Court. The Lodge itself is listed in its own right and the garden is registered as a Historic Park and Garden of special historic interest. The appeal property is in the direct line of sight when exiting the Ashton Court Estate under the arch of Clifton Lodge and as such the increased height and prominence of the building would have an effect on the way in which the lodge is experienced. The Council also say that the proposal would harm the character of the Grade I Listed Ashton Court and to the extent that the Lodge forms a boundary structure to the Estate I agree, though the principal building at Ashton Court is some distance away. 10. The appellant contends that there is far too much space and openness between the listed lodge and the proposed extension for there to be an impact and suggests there is no visual relationship between The Gables and Clifton Lodge and thus no effect upon it. I disagree. The appeal property is directly in front of the Lodge and is the property most visible when emerging under the Arch of Clifton Lodge. This is a key vista which would be adversely affected by the increased height of the appeal proposal. 11. Section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) requires special regard to be had to the desirability of preserving a listed building and its setting. The appeal proposal would encroach into the vista from a key perspective exiting the estate causing harm. In the words of the Framework that harm would be less than substantial, nonetheless it is harm to which considerable weight must be attached. Effect on the Conservation Area 12. The position of the dwelling is on the edge of the CA directly opposite the Ashton Court Estate. The Leigh Woods Design Statement highlights that the setting of the Ashton Court estate is dramatic and unique and comments that overall in the CA the sense of spaciousness is a defining feature. Furthermore it states that where development is allowed the height and roofline of neighbouring buildings should be respected. 13. The appellant argues that the enlargement would make a positive contribution to the character of the area where historically individual owners have expressed their opulence in the design through unusually high quality buildings. These exhibit a wide variety of detailing and this proposal represents a continuation of that thinking. Moreover he highlights a contradiction in that the building has been described by the Council as both squat and finely proportioned and also as low and wide. In contrast the Council say that the building is one of a row of three similarly styled houses which sits comfortably alongside its neighbours and where the proposed changes would punctuate the roofscape resulting in a discordant feature which would be harmful to the overall proportions of the building. 14. Whatever phrase is used to describe the proportions of the building what is particularly clear to me is that the roof extension would become an overly defining feature and a significant change of appearance and proportion would occur which would be out of keeping. Appeal Decision APP/D0121/D/18/3205583 4 15. The detailed design and materials of the extension are not in dispute and are proposed in the style and materials sympathetic to the host building. However the bulk and massing of the proposed extension when compared to the proportions of the original and in the context of the setting would, in my view be disproportionate. The resulting effect would be to make a significant change to the appearance of the dwelling altering the dominant feature to the detriment of the character and appearance of the building, its wider context and its relationship with the space within which the Listed Clifton Lodge and the wider Leigh Woods CA are enjoyed. This would not be sufficiently mitigated by the careful choice of materials and detailing no matter how well executed. 16. I note the efforts which have been taken to ensure that the design, materials and fine detailing would reflect the existing building and complement the local vernacular. However as these are aspects of good design which are fundamental to all development, as stated within the Framework, this does not represent a notable benefit. 17. Section 72(1) of the Act requires special attention to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the CA. In this case both the setting of Clifton Lodge, the Ashton Court estate in general and the Leigh Woods CA would be harmed and I attribute significant weight to that harm. 18. For the above reasons the proposal would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA and the setting of listed buildings and this would cause, in the words of the Framework less than substantial harm. It would conflict with Policies CS5 and CS12 of the North Somerset Core Strategy and Policies DM3, DM4 DM5, DM32 and DM38 of the North Somerset Sites and Policies Plan (Part 1) and to the North Somerset Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document. These policies and guidance anticipate that great weight is afforded to the conservation of designated heritage assets, including their settings; ensure that developments protect, and where appropriate, enhance or better reveal the significance of heritage assets and their settings; ensure that developments are sensitive to local character; and that the proportions of extensions to dwellings are in keeping with the original. Other Considerations 19. Where development would be inappropriate and therefore harmful to the Green Belt it is necessary to consider whether any other considerations exist which would outweigh that harm. The benefits outlined by the appellant relate to the desire to rationalise the internal accommodation in the house and provide additional space for the needs of a growing family. These issues are however personal to the appellant and little weight can be attached to personal circumstances. Green Belt and Planning Balance 20. In this case, I have found that the overall size increase would result in inappropriate development. The Framework makes it very clear that the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, needs to be clearly outweighed in order to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it. I have also found that there would be harm to designated heritage assets. Paragraph 196 of the Framework states that where a proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance Appeal Decision APP/D0121/D/18/3205583 5 of designated heritage assets, that harm should also be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. 21. The appellant argues there is public benefit in the enhancement of the CA though I have outlined above why I consider this not to be the case. There is no public benefit established and therefore the very special circumstances required to outweigh the Green Belt harm or the less than substantial harm to heritage assets do not exist and therefore the appeal should not succeed. Other Matters 22. Reference has been made to the Councils’ report which states that the plots are spacious and the proposal would not be overly close to neighbouring dwellings. It is contended that this spaciousness allows the proposals to make a positive contribution to the area. However for the reasons already explained the scale and mass of the proposal is substantial and harmful. That harm is not outweighed by the overall size of the plot and does not change my conclusions in respect of the main issues. 23. I note that letters of support have been received in relation to the scheme as well as letters of objection. I have taken these into account in reaching my decision but they do not change my overall conclusion. 24. The appellant asserts that the Council failed to make a site visit and cannot therefore have properly assessed the application or understand the effect on the surrounding area. This is not a matter for this appeal. In any event I have reached a conclusion on the basis of the evidence before me and following a visit to the site and to the surrounding area. Conclusion 25. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised the appeal is dismissed. Janet Wilson INSPECTOR