Demolition of the existing garage and conservatory

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 September 2018 by Andrew Smith BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/D/18/3206789 16 Owles Lane, Buntingford SG9 9JA  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 Joseph McNamara against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council.  The application Ref 3/18/0213/HH, dated 30 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 18 April 2018.  The development proposed is the demolition of the existing garage and conservatory. Removal of the existing roof for a loft conversion, including alterations to the existing roof, removal of two existing chimneys and the addition of three dormers to the front and one large dormer to the rear. Erection of a part two storey, part single storey rear extension and a two storey side extension. Erection of a timber framed outbuilding at the end of the garden. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed in so far as it relates to the demolition of the existing garage and conservatory, the removal of the existing roof for a loft conversion, including alterations to the existing roof, removal of two existing chimneys and the addition of three dormers to the front and one large dormer to the rear and the erection of a part two storey, part single storey rear extension and a two storey side extension. The appeal is allowed in so far as it relates to a timber framed outbuilding at the end of the garden and planning permission is granted for a timber framed outbuilding at 16 Owles Lane, Buntingford SG9 9JA in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 3/18/0213/HH, dated 30 January 2018, and the plans submitted with it, in so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1710_02 Location Plan; 1710_ORD4 Block Plan Proposed Garden Building; 20.11.17 Rev.D Garden Building. 2) The outbuilding hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes ancillary or incidental to the residential use of the dwelling known as 16 Owles Lane. 3) Prior to the first occupation of the development details / samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the outbuilding hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details / samples. Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3206789 2 Procedural Matters 2. I have used the description of the proposal from the Council’s decision notice and the appellant’s appeal form, because it makes reference to all aspects of the proposal. 3. The erection of the timber framed outbuilding has commenced. The timber frame of the outbuilding was in place during my inspection of the site, although its external sides were unfinished. From the evidence before me it is apparent that the Council considers the design of the outbuilding to be acceptable and that its impact will be minimal. I have considered this element of the scheme in this context. 4. Since the submission of the appeal, a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) has been published by the Government. This is a material consideration in planning decisions. In relation to the main issues in this appeal, Government policy has not materially changed and it was not therefore necessary to invite any further comments from the different parties involved. 5. Also since the submission of the appeal, the East Herts District Plan (the District Plan) has been adopted by the Council and the policies therein can now be afforded full weight in decision making. The main parties were written to inviting comments on what bearing the adoption has on this appeal, and I have taken their comments into consideration in my decision. Main Issues 6. The main issues are the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the appeal property and its surroundings; and the effect of the proposal upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at 14 Owles Lane, with particular regard to loss of light and outlook. Reasons Character and appearance Extensions and alterations to the main dwelling 7. The site makes up part of a row of residential properties. The built extents of these properties are setback from Owles Lane, and are set upon a relatively uniform front building line with private rear garden areas behind. The appeal property therefore makes up part of a distinct pattern of development that is in place along this particular side of Owles Lane. The appeal site contains the end property in the row (No 16) and is bound by an agricultural field to the rear and side. The land on the opposing side of Owles Lanes is currently undeveloped, but it is understood that planning permission has been granted for a large scale residential development. 8. No 16 currently takes the form of a modest, brick-built, hipped roof bungalow. The row of properties containing No 16 is characterised by hipped roof bungalows, a number of which are served by dormer window openings that serve habitable roof space. Notwithstanding this, I note that at the other end of the row there is a pair of gable-fronted, semi-detached houses of a full 2 stories in height (both of these houses have hipped roofs) and that the neighbouring property to the right when viewed from the front of the appeal Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3206789 3 site (No 14) is of gabled roof form to both of its sides. The ground level gradually falls away as you move along the row of properties from the appeal site. 9. The proposed extensions and alterations would substantially alter the appearance of No 16, most strikingly at roof level where the property would be entirely remodelled in order to accommodate a first floor level. The existing hipped roof (and existing chimneys, one on either side of the property) would be replaced by a substantially enlarged gable-ended roof that would incorporate a flat roof running the full width of the property at full ridge height. 10. When compared to No 16’s existing roof, a slight increase in full ridge height is proposed alongside steeper pitches to both the front and rear slopes of the roof. The bulk and mass would be increased further when taking into account the proposed side and rear extensions to the property that the roof would cover. When considering these factors alongside the somewhat contrived flat- roofed (in part) and gable-ended proposed design, it is considered that the proposed remodelled roof would appear unduly prominent and fail to integrate effectively with the host property. This is even if these elements were constructed in materials to match the existing property. 11. This prominence is particularly due to the uninterrupted views that are afforded of the outward facing side of No 16 and its slightly higher ground level comparative to neighbouring properties. These uninterrupted views would continue to be available should the development site opposite the appeal site be built out. Whilst the character of the wider area would alter in this event, No 16’s direct relationship with its neighbouring row of residential properties would continue to ensue and be readily visible. 12. I acknowledge that No 14 is a gable-ended property, this is however an anomaly in the row of hipped roof properties containing the appeal site. No 14 is also sandwiched between 2 neighbouring properties, therefore limiting the visibility of both of its sides. Also, No 14 exhibits traditional gable ends with a defined ridge point. The proposed flat roofed element and associated expanses of gable walling would instead appear contrived and discordant with its surroundings. 13. Notwithstanding the negative effects identified above, the proposed single storey rear extension would be of hipped roof design and sympathetic to the existing host dwelling and surrounding area. I also consider that the proposed front facing dormer windows’ designs and proportions would closely mirror those already serving No 14 so as to have an acceptable effect (particularly given the presence of other dormer windows further down the row of properties containing the appeal site). The proposed flat-roofed rear dormer, with the exception of its side facing flank wall, would not be readily visible from public vantage points and does not therefore raise undue concerns when considered in isolation. A notable gap would be retained to the front of No 16 between the proposed side extension and the built extent of No 14 so that any potential harmful terracing effect would be avoided. 14. For all of the above reasons, I find that the proposed extended and altered main roof would cause harm to the character and appearance of the appeal property and its surroundings. The proposal conflicts with Policies DES4 and HOU11 of the District Plan in so far as these policies require all development proposals, including extensions to existing buildings, to be of a high standard of Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3206789 4 design and layout and to reflect and promote local distinctiveness and state that flat roofed extensions, except those on the ground floor, will be refused as visually undesirable other than in those exceptional circumstances where the character of the original dwelling allows a flat-roofed design to be appropriately incorporated, or it represents a sustainable or innovative design approach. Outbuilding 15. The outbuilding, as part-constructed, is a single storey in height and is located adjacent to the rear boundary of the appeal site. It covers a rectangular footprint and close to the full width of the appeal site. The outbuilding is visible from Owles Lane due to its positioning adjacent to an open agricultural field, although this visibility is concealed to a notable extent by virtue of the presence of boundary treatment. There is, within the grounds of No 14, a neighbouring outbuilding of comparable height, format and appearance. 16. In light of its discreet placement and limited scale it is considered that the structure, once completed, would take the appearance of an appropriately designed and positioned outbuilding. The proposed outbuilding would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the appeal site and its surroundings, with particular regard to the design of the proposed scheme and its relationship to the surrounding pattern of development. It complies with Policies DES4 and HOU11 of the District Plan in so far as they require development proposals to be of a high standard of design and layout to reflect and promote local distinctiveness. Living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at 14 Owles Lane Extensions and alterations to main dwelling 17. The side gable end of No 14 addresses the appeal site and is setback only a short distance from it. This side gable contains 3 window openings. Of the 2 windows at ground floor, one is obscure glazed and the other appears to be a secondary opening serving a habitable room. At first floor there is a further single opening that would also appear to serve a habitable room. 18. The 2 storey element of the proposal would align with the side gable end and 2 storey extent of No 14 whilst a separation distance, albeit reduced in comparison to the existing arrangement, would be retained between Nos 14 and 16. In light of what the facing ground floor windows of No 14 serve, I have no undue concerns with respect to any potential overbearing or overshadowing relationship. I have taken into account the orientation of the site and the path of travel of the sun in this finding. 19. With respect to the facing first floor window opening of No 14, any potential adverse effects are diminished by virtue of its elevated position. Notwithstanding the extensions and alterations proposed to No 16, acceptable levels of light and outlook would be afforded to this window opening, which currently faces over No 16’s hipped roof slope. 20. Just beyond the main built extent of No 16, a single detached garage, which would be demolished, is positioned so as to abut the side boundary to the grounds of No 14. The proposed single storey rear extension, in comparison, would be set away from the side boundary and would be afforded a sloped roof so as to guard against any potential loss of light or outlook. Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3206789 5 21. For the above reasons, the proposed extensions and alterations to the main dwelling would not cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at 14 Owles Lane, with particular regard to loss of light and outlook. The proposal therefore complies with Policy DES4 of the District Plan in so far as it requires development proposals to avoid significant detrimental impacts on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties and land. Outbuilding 22. The outbuilding, as part-constructed, is remotely located with respect to the main dwelling of No 14, which is occupied by the nearest residential occupiers to the appeal site. In light of the outbuilding’s remote location to the rear of the site, it would have no adverse effects upon the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. 23. I consider that the proposed outbuilding, once completed, would not cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers at 14 Owles Lane, with particular regard to loss of light and outlook. The proposal therefore complies with Policy DES4 of the District Plan in so far as it requires development proposals to avoid significant detrimental impacts on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties and land. Other Matters 24. I do not consider that Policies GBR2, which relates to the District’s rural area beyond the Green Belt, and TRA3, which relates to vehicle parking provision, cited by the Council in evidence, are relevant to the main issues of this appeal. I am content that, due to a lack of any evidence to indicate otherwise, the appeal site is not located within the District’s designated rural area. The proposed car parking arrangements do not raise undue concerns in any event given the spacious extent of driveway that I inspected on site. 25. The Buntingford Community Area Neighbourhood Plan (NP) was formally adopted in May 2017 and therefore forms part of the development plan. The appeal site falls within the Buntingford Settlement Boundary as defined in the NP. Housing Development Policies HD2, HD3 and HD4 contained within the NP refer to new housing and are therefore irrelevant as the scheme before me relates to proposed extensions to an existing dwelling and the construction of a domestic outbuilding. Conditions 26. As the erection of the outbuilding has commenced there is no need to condition a time limit for implementation. I have specified the approved plans in the interests of certainty (only the plans depicting the outbuilding are to be approved). A condition relating to external facing materials is necessary to ensure that the appearance of the outbuilding would be satisfactory. 27. A further condition is to be applied to ensure that the outbuilding is only ever occupied for purposes ancillary or incidental to the main dwelling. This is to ensure that the outbuilding is not used as a self-contained unit of accommodation as it has not been assessed on such terms. Both parties have agreed that such a condition would be acceptable. Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3206789 6 Conclusions 28. I have found that, in its complete form, the proposed outbuilding would cause no material harm to the character and appearance of the appeal property and its surroundings and to neighbours’ living conditions, subject to the above conditions. The outbuilding would be both physically and functionally severable. 29. For the above reasons I conclude that the appeal should be allowed in so far as it relates to a timber framed outbuilding at the end of the garden subject to the conditions specified, but dismissed in so far as it relates to the removal of the existing roof for a loft conversion, including alterations to the existing roof, the removal of two existing chimneys and the addition of three dormers to the front and one large dormer to the rear and the erection of a part two storey, part single storey rear extension and a two storey side extension. Andrew Smith INSPECTOR