Erection of part single storey, part first floor extensions, enlargement of existing first floor window and detached garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 October 2018 by S Poole BA(Hons) DipArch MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8 November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/D/18/3207688 2 Holly Grove Road, Bramfield, Hertford, Hertfordshire SG14 2QH  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 R Mills against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council.  The application Ref 3/18/0484/HH, dated 4 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 30 April 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of part single storey, part first floor extensions, enlargement of existing first floor window and detached garage. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The East Herts District Plan was adopted on 23 October 2018 and replaces the East Herts Local Plan Second Review 2007. I am required to consider the appeal against the development plan in place at the time of my decision and therefore the policies in the replaced Local Plan are no longer relevant to the appeal. I am satisfied that the policies in the District Plan (2018) are not materially different from those referred to in the decision notice and therefore have not deemed it necessary to seek parties’ comments on this matter. 3. A revised National Planning Policy Framework was published on 24 July 2018. I am satisfied that the new Framework does not differ from the 2012 Framework in respect of the matters before me and have not therefore deemed it necessary to seek parties’ comments on the revised Framework. Main Issues 4. The main issues in this case are: (i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development for the purposes of section 13 of the Framework and development plan policy; (ii) the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; (iii) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area; (iv) the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of 1 Holly Grove Road, with particular regard to natural light and outlook; and Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3207688 2 (v) if the proposal is 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 the development. Reasons Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development 5. Paragraph 145 of the Framework states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate. A number of exceptions to this are identified including proposals comprising 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. 6. The appeal property is a 2-storey semi-detached house, which forms part of a group of similar properties. The property has been extended in the past and the information presented by the Council indicates that the proposed ground and first floor extensions together with the previous extensions would result in a floor area that is more than 66% greater than the original dwelling. This is not disputed by the appellant. 7. In my judgement this represents a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraph 145 of the Framework. For these reasons it would be inappropriate development that is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. I attribute substantial weight to this. Openness of the Green Belt 8. Paragraph 133 of the Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The proposal would significantly increase the overall volume, bulk and amount of development on the site reducing, and therefore causing harm to, the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal therefore also conflicts with the Framework in this respect, a matter to which I also attribute substantial weight. Character and appearance 9. Whilst I note that neighbouring properties have been extended at the rear, the proposed additions would be more substantial than those nearby and would include large areas of flat roof. The proposal would be out of keeping with the scale and appearance of the group of houses and would be an incongruous and overly prominent addition to the host property. 10. For these reasons I conclude that, due to its siting, bulk and design, the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. It therefore fails to comply with District Plan Policy DES4, which requires development to be of a high standard of design and layout that reflects and promotes local distinctiveness. There is also conflict with the aims of the Framework in this respect. Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3207688 3 Living conditions 11. The single-storey element of the proposal would result in a substantial area of flank wall next to the boundary shared with the attached property, 1 Holly Grove Road. This would be taller than the fence on this boundary and taller than any fence that can be constructed under permitted development rights. It would greatly enclose the area of garden immediately to the rear of No. 1 and compromise outlook from, and natural light to, the garden room at the rear of No. 1. 12. For these reasons I conclude that the proposal would have an unacceptable effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 1. It is therefore contrary to District Plan Policy DES4 which, amongst other matters, states that development should avoid significant detrimental impacts on the amenity of occupiers of neighbouring properties. Other considerations 13. I turn now to consider whether there are any considerations sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm identified above in respect of inappropriateness and openness. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 14. The appellant indicates that 3 of the neighbouring properties have been extended and have floor areas that are in excess of 56% greater than the original houses in each case. Whilst I note that these properties have been extended in the past, there is nothing before me to demonstrate that the additions are of the scale stated or that the extensions required planning permission. In any event, each application and appeal must be considered on its individual merits and having regard to current development plan policy. As such I attribute limited weight to this matter. Green Belt balancing exercise 15. The other considerations do not amount to matters that clearly outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt which I have identified in respect of the proposal’s inappropriateness and effect on openness. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development do not therefore exist. The proposal is therefore contrary to the Framework and District Plan Policy GBR1, which states that planning applications within the Green Belt will be considered in line with the provision of the Framework. 16. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail. S Poole INSPECTOR