For an extension following demolition of the original part of the house and replacement extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 September 2018 by Mr C J Tivey BSc (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 19 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Z3635/D/18/3205760 Oakford, Park Road, Towpath, Shepperton TW17 9JB  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 Jon Willison against the decision of Spelthorne Borough Council.  The application Ref 18/00270/HOU, dated 20 February 2018, was refused by notice dated 17 April 2018.  The development proposed is for an extension following demolition of the original part of the house and replacement extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: i) Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’); and the effect of the proposal on the openness on the Green Belt; ii) The effect of the appeal proposal upon the character and appearance of the surrounding Plotland area; iii) Whether the proposal would be safe in respect of flood risk; and iv) If the proposal would be inappropriate development, 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 it. Reasons Whether Inappropriate Development 3. Policy GD1 of the Borough Local Plan1 (LP) stipulates that the Green Belt shown on the Proposals Map will be permanent and within it development will not be permitted which would conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt and maintaining its openness. Subject to the above comment, development will not 1 Spelthorpe Borough Local Plan 2001 “saved” polices and proposals as at 28 September 2017 (March 2008) Appeal Decision APP/Z3635/D/18/3205760 2 be permitted except for the uses appropriate to the Green Belt, comprising amongst other things, the limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings (criterion c). 4. Policy EN2 of the Council’s Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document (2009) (DPD) is concerned with the replacement and extension of dwellings in the Green Belt, including Plotland areas and it sets out a number of criteria. The Council will only permit the rebuilding and extension of dwellings in the Green Belt, where the proposal: Does not significantly change the scale of the original building, regardless of the size of the plot; does not detract from the character of the area; and complies with Policy EN1 of the Design of New Development. In support of this policy the preceding text in paragraph 10.10 states that in considering the scale of development that may be acceptable, a comparison is required to be made with the scale of the original building. In this context ‘original’ refers to the building as originally constructed, or as in 1947 whichever is the later, not the building as it exists at present. The reason for this is to enable account to be taken of the cumulative impact of a current proposal, together with previous enlargements of the property that may have taken place through past extensions or rebuilding. 5. I consider that this Development Plan policy context broadly supports paragraph 145 of the Framework which states that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt, but with one of the exceptions being the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Paragraph 143 of the Framework highlights that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Consequently, within paragraph 144, the Framework states that when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ 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 (my emphasis) outweighed by other considerations. 6. There is dispute between the parties as to the amount by which the gross internal floor area of the subject building would increase. However, it is quite probable that the dwelling has been in existence in some guise since before 1948 and there is a relatively extensive planning history associated with it being extended over the years so that it has morphed from a bungalow into the chalet style dwelling that it is today. 7. There is no quantitive guide within either the Framework or the Development Plan as to what increase in floor area, or volume for that matter, would constitute disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. However, I note that the appellants acknowledge that Oakford has been previously extended and that these previous additions, coupled with those now proposed could be considered to be disproportionate to the original dwelling. Therefore, much like for my colleague in determining appeal Ref. APP/Z3635/D/16/3147007, it is also necessary to undertake a qualitative assessment as regards the effect of the proposed extensions in the context of Development Plan policy. Appeal Decision APP/Z3635/D/18/3205760 3 8. I have not been provided with plans from either party that illustrate the full evolution of the dwelling from when it was originally constructed, however, I have been provided with plans of the existing building as it stands today and which enables me to make a comparison with the proposed extensions. In addition, the appellants have helpfully provided diagrams in the form of Figure 2 in their appeal statement showing areas to be removed and added to; although in order to assess the impact of a proposal upon the openness of the Green Belt it is also necessary to take into account all three dimensions of form rather than floor space alone. 9. I accept that it may be possible that with an unsuccessful appeal having taken place that the appellants may wish to explore ways of extending the dwelling utilising Permitted Development Rights, however, I have been provided with no drawings to highlight what in reality could be constructed, therefore as a fallback position, I give this very limited weight, having regard to the cited caselaw. 10.The existing front half of the building would be extended over one and a half storeys both outwards and upwards, with a new ridgeline created running at the same level as the rear extended portion of the dwelling. Together with the creation of a gable feature on the southern elevation, the overall increase in scale and bulk of the dwelling would be significant. Consequently, I find that the proposal would give rise to disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 11.I also accept that the Plotland Area comprises a defined and relatively contained area where a significant number of existing residential properties and a small number of commercial sites are set in a quite traditional pattern of development. Nonetheless it falls within the Green Belt, the essential characteristics of which are their openness and their permanence (Framework paragraph 133). For all intents and purposes, much like for a village, the site falls within a rural area and, having regard to Summers Poultry Products Ltd v SSCLG and Stratford-upon-Avon [2009], the creation of additional bulk as proposed by the scheme before me would give rise to a loss of openness which would constitute an encroachment into the countryside (Framework paragraph 134 c). 12. The proposal conflicts with the guidance within DPD paragraph 10.10 and criterion a. of DPD Policy EN2, as the proposal would individually and cumulatively significantly change the scale of the original building. Therefore, the proposal would amount to inappropriate development, giving rise to a loss of openness of the Green Belt. This is contrary to Framework paragraph 133 which highlights that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts, the fundamental aim of the policy for which it is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Character and Appearance 13. The appeal site is situated close to the River Thames within an area of Plotland development where many dwellings have been generally altered and extended over time from when originally constructed, or replaced by modern dwellings. The appeal site is situated towards the end of a private road and is a chalet style dwelling located behind a row of pollarded lime trees and privet hedging; Appeal Decision APP/Z3635/D/18/3205760 4 it is also visible from the north east across the open frontage of the dwelling next door known as Rostrevor. 14. The appeal dwelling is clearly in need of some modernisation, but whilst it has evolved over the years, it is a good example of Plotland development with the front elevation in particular, being of its time; and overall the dwelling also has a good degree of articulation and detailing. The house has been extended in more recent years towards the rear with modern uPVC windows having been installed to the southern elevation. 15. I have found above, that the proposed alterations would individually and cumulatively significantly increase the overall scale and bulk of the dwelling. In addition, the proposed principal elevation would lack articulation and the fenestration design would be such that windows would appear rather lost with a low window:wall ratio that would be bland in its appearance. I do not object per se to the removal of the flat roof single storey structure which currently exists on the Park Road elevation, but nonetheless the proposals would bring the one and a half storey built form closer to the road in an insensitive manner that would demonstrably increase its presence within the street scene. I say this notwithstanding the proposed use of traditional roof forms with modest dormer windows elsewhere on the scheme. Further, whilst I accept that the photographs submitted demonstrate the variety of architecture within the locality, each case must ultimately be assessed on its own merits. 16. I therefore conclude that the proposal would have a harmful effect upon the character and appearance of the Plotland Area, having regard to the Spelthorne Borough Supplementary Planning Document: Design of Residential Extensions and New Residential Development (2011). The proposal conflicts with Policy EN1 of the Spelthorne Core Strategy and Policies Development Plan Document (2009) (DPD) which requires a high standard in the design of new development and that proposals for new development should demonstrate they will, amongst other things, create buildings that are attractive with their own distinct identity, respect and make a positive contribution to the street scene and the character of the area in which they are situated. Where concerning Plotland Areas, the proposal conflicts with Criterion d of DPD Policy EN2 which where concerning the extension of structures require them to be, amongst other things, compatible in size with traditional Plotland dwellings and with the scale of adjoining properties. I do, however, accept that Criterion f) is not relevant as the dwelling already has accommodation over 2no storeys and it does not directly front the River Thames and therefore criteria e), g) and h) are not relevant either. Flood Risk 17. The Council’s key concern in its third reason for refusal with regard to flood risk is essentially based on their belief that the proposal would give rise to the creation of an additional unit of residential accommodation and therefore would introduce an additional ‘more vulnerable’ unit into Flood Zone 3B. 18. I understand from the submissions that Mr Willison’s sister currently resides in the dwelling and due to health issues that she experiences, relies on him for a degree of care. Consequently, it is proposed to form an annex within the subject building to enable the siblings to live in close proximity to each other. Appeal Decision APP/Z3635/D/18/3205760 5 19. It is quite clear that both halves of Oakford would provide internal facilities to enable independent living to take place with separate kitchens, bathrooms and external entrance doors without any internal connection. However, I note that the Council validated the proposal as a householder application for planning permission for works or extensions to a dwelling and having regard to Uttlesford DC v SSE and White [1992], just because ancillary accommodation provides facilities for independent day-to-day living, does not necessarily mean that it would become a separate planning unit from the main dwelling – instead it would be a matter of fact and degree. In that case, the accommodation gave the occupant the facilities of a self-contained unit, although it was intended to function as an annex with the occupant sharing a living activity in company with the family in the main dwelling and that there was no reason in law why such accommodation should consequently become a separate planning unit from the main dwelling. 20. In this specific case the dwelling and the annex to be created would form part of the same building although, as I have highlighted above, would have separate external entrance doors. Notwithstanding this they would share the same garden and parking area to the south. On balance, therefore, I conclude that there would be both a physical and functional relationship between the two and if I had been so minded to have allowed the appeal, could have imposed a condition that controlled the annexe’s occupation to purposes ancillary to the residential use of the main dwelling. 21. In respect of Flood Risk, the Vulnerability and Compatibility Table set out within the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) highlights that more vulnerable uses such as new buildings used for dwellinghouses should not be permitted in Flood Zone 3B. However, as I have found that the proposal would not give rise to the creation of an additional unit of residential accommodation, the proposal before me is tantamount to an extension to an existing dwelling. In such circumstances, the PPG states that for householder development, including physical extensions to the existing dwelling itself, minor developments are unlikely to raise significant flood risk issues, unless they would have an adverse effect on the water course, flood plain or its flood defences; would impede access to flood defence and management facilities; or where the cumulative impact of such developments would have a significant effect on local flood storage capacity or flood flows. 22. I understand that the Environment Agency (EA) was consulted, but indicated that they did not require to be consulted due to the nature of the works, but for such proposals their advice on Flood Risk Assessments advises following the EA standing advice, which includes that making sure that floor levels are either no lower than existing floor levels or 300mm above the estimated flood level. The appellants confirm that the proposal would comply with this and furthermore, the creation of a new timber deck to the exterior would remove an existing feature and therefore improve the circulation ability of flood waters. 23. Consequently I consider that the proposal would not give rise to a material increase in flood risk either to the future occupants of the extensions hereby proposed or materially add to the problems of the emergency services during a major flood event. Therefore, the proposal complies with CS Policy LO1 which, amongst other things, states that the Council will seek to reduce flood risk and its adverse effect on people and property in Spelthorne by requiring Appeal Decision APP/Z3635/D/18/3205760 6 development in Zones 2, 3A and 3B to be designed to be flood resilient/resistant. Green Belt Balance 24. I accept that the proposal would enable the provision of close care to Mr Willison’s sister, although I have been provided with little information as to the precise nature of her health condition, and therefore whilst I acknowledge that her day-to-day care is a material consideration in the determination of this appeal and indeed has led me to the conclusion that the proposal would not give rise to a material increase in flood risk, I consider that these factors do not amount to the very special circumstances necessary to negate the harm to the Green Belt through what amounts to inappropriate development. Conclusion 25. Having regard to the above and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal be dismissed. C J Tivey INSPECTOR