Sun room/porch

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 November 2018 by Kevin Savage BA MPlan MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 11 December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/A4710/W/18/3209936 Wine Tavern Barn, Wine Tavern Lane, Sowerby, Sowerby Bridge HX6 1PB  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 & Mrs Lyons against the decision of Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref 18/00635/HSE, dated 21 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 23 July 2018.  The development proposed is a sun room/porch. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The site lies within an area of Green Belt. Therefore, the main issues are:  Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies;  The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land with it;  The effect on the character and appearance of the area;  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 inappropriate development in Green Belt 3. The appeal property is a detached, stone built dwelling located within a short group of four properties to the northern side of Wine Tavern Lane and within the open countryside. The dwelling is two storeys in height and stands perpendicular to the road, with the front entrance facing out across a courtyard. There are two single storey, lean-to extensions to the building, one to the rear, and one to the side elevation closest to the road. Between this extension and the road stands a detached garage, which has an upper storey within its pitched roof, accessed via an external stair to the rear. Appeal Decision APP/A4710/W/18/3209936 2 4. It is proposed to construct a sun room/porch to the front elevation. It would be largely glazed to all sides above a stone base, with a shallow pitched roof in natural stone slates. 5. The Framework sets out that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The Framework identifies the construction of new buildings within the Green Belt as inappropriate, but lists certain forms of development which are not regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt. This includes 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. Policy GNE1 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan (August 2006)1 (the RCUDP) is cited by the Council, and generally seeks to restrain development outside of urban areas through the general extent of the Green Belt. 7. The Council argues that the proposed sun room, when taken with the existing single storey extensions and garage, would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The Council states that the building was approved for conversion to a dwelling in 19992, including extensions and the formation of a double garage. The Council indicates that a further application for a timber double garage and stables was made in 20023, but that the garage has subsequently been constructed in stone, and with an additional storey. 8. The appellants’ grounds of appeal point to the subservient scale of the proposed extension, its transparent form, appropriate materials and enclosed setting. The appellants’ grounds do not, however, specifically address the question of inappropriate development raised by the Council. 9. I am not provided with details of the 1999 application or with measurements to ascertain the degree to which the building has been extended over and above its original size. However, the description of the 1999 scheme refers to extensions in the plural, which would indicate that both of the existing extensions which I observed on the building were added through this permission. The planning history also indicates that the garage was added sometime after 1999. Although it is detached, I observed it to be set very close to the side extension of the dwelling, such that from the road, the buildings appear contiguous. The existence of the upper floor also indicates to me the garage has a further domestic function over and above its normal storage function. I therefore regard the garage as forming part of the dwelling, notwithstanding its very limited physical separation. 10. The existing extensions have added to the building on two sides, most obviously extending it out to the road side boundary through the side extension and garage. The lean-to extensions are relatively low in height, but they occupy considerable floorspace relative to the main building, in particular the broad side extension, and have a notable effect on the overall size and shape of the building. The garage is a substantial structure standing taller than the dwelling itself, in part due to the sloping ground level. 1 As amended by the Secretary of State: 3 August 2009 2 Council Ref 99/00766/CON 3 Council Ref 02/01005/FUL Appeal Decision APP/A4710/W/18/3209936 3 11. Whilst extensions have been approved to the building in the past, and were evidently considered appropriate at the time, the test in the Framework is whether the proposal would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building (my emphasis). 12. The proposed extension would measure 4.45m deep by 4.6m wide, and would occupy an area currently laid out as a patio, and would add to the building on a third side in an obvious and visible manner. The existing additions to the building are already significant, given their size and prominent positioning. The proposed extension would add to this already considerable cumulative impact, and would further diminish the proportion of the overall dwelling taken up by the original building. 13. For these reasons, I find that the proposed extension would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. It would therefore be inappropriate development which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with Policy GNE1. Openness of the Green Belt 14. Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. The bulk of the building would be increased by additional built development, and in this respect the proposal would reduce openness. However, in isolation, the loss of openness would be modest taking the scale of the extension into account. Effect on character and appearance 15. The extension would use traditional materials to the base and roof. However, the unstained oak frame windows would contrast with the grey framed windows of the existing building, and the extent of glazing would be uncharacteristic of the building, which has few, modestly sized windows reflecting its traditional form. The extension would occupy a prominent position on the principal elevation and given its form would appear discordant against the traditional stone facade. Despite the appellants’ assertions, I am not persuaded that the extension would be so transparent in form as to limit its visual impact, given the solidity of the roof, base and window frames. The extension would obscure the principal elevation and would thus diminish its surviving traditional form. The proposal would therefore harm the character and appearance of the area, and would conflict with Policy BE1 of the RCUDP, which requires proposals to make a positive contribution to the established character and appearance of existing building and the surroundings. Other considerations 16. The appellants refer to a purportedly similar development approved within the district4. Although I am supplied with drawing excerpts from this decision, the information is otherwise limited and insufficient to enable me to draw a direct comparison with the appeal scheme, and therefore I give little weight to this decision. 17. The appellants state that the proposal would amount to permitted development had these rights not been previously removed by condition. However, as the appellants concede permitted development rights have been removed, there is 4 Council Ref 08/00452/HSE Appeal Decision APP/A4710/W/18/3209936 4 no realistic fall-back position which could be implemented in lieu of the appeal scheme. 18. I acknowledge the letter of support submitted by an interested party; however, this does not alter my conclusions in respect of the main issues. Conclusions 19. The proposal would be inappropriate development and the Framework establishes that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. In addition, there would be a modest loss of openness, and harm to the character and appearance of the area. 20. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations. As explained, the material considerations in support of the proposal attract limited weight at best. I conclude that, taken together, they do not clearly outweigh the harm the scheme would cause. Consequently, there are not the very special circumstances necessary to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt. 21. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Kevin Savage INSPECTOR