Detached timber clad garden room (summer house)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 January 2019 by Benjamin Webb BA(Hons) MA MA MSc PGDip(UD) MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25th January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/P2114/D/18/3211792 Walton House, Belgrave Road, Ventnor, Isle of Wight PO38 1JH  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 Philip Crispin against the decision of Isle of Wight Council.  The application Ref P/00569/18, dated 9 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 6 July 2018.  The development proposed is a detached timber clad garden room (summer house). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issues are:  whether the development would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Ventnor Conservation Area (the conservation area); and,  the effects on the development on ground stability. Reasons Character and Appearance 3. The site is located within the conservation area, which covers a large part of the settlement. The significance of the conservation area as a whole lies in the historic layout and architectural character of its buildings. As the Ventnor Conservation Area Character Statement explains, much of the development within the conservation area is a product of nineteenth expansion which was experienced partly in relation to the seaside location. 4. The beach provides a vantage point from which important views of historic and buildings constructed along the coastal strip are available. From here buildings are seen to be irregularly staggered and terraced up the slope. Whilst the arrangement is visually dense nearing the centre of the settlement, gaps nonetheless occur, and these typically contain gardens or other vegetation. These green gaps, or ‘wedges’, indeed help to break up the visual density of built form, lending interest by emphasising the staggered building arrangement. The garden of Walton House provides one such gap. 5. The proposed summerhouse would be a substantial structure located roughly half way down the garden. It would be positioned on a terrace which is slightly dug in to the sloping ground. In this position the summerhouse would be visible Appeal Decision APP/P2114/D/18/3211792 2 from large parts of the beach, notwithstanding tidal variation. Views would more limited or absent closer to the sea wall and along the Esplanade. 6. Whilst green space would remain both above and below the summerhouse, the size and visual contribution made by the gap would nonetheless be diminished. Insofar as the summerhouse would also be located and stand at and slightly above the level of the roof of the property immediately adjacent, it would also relate poorly to the established character, layout and staggered arrangement of development. Consequently the summerhouse would appear visually intrusive and incongruous viewed from the beach. 7. The appellant indicates that the summerhouse would complement similar structures in adjacent gardens, and another structure already present in the garden of Walton House. However I saw no substantial or visually prominent summerhouses within the immediate setting of the site. Furthermore the existing structure on site is a prominent and somewhat incongruous feature in views from the beach. In this regard the cumulative visual effects that would arise from the development would accentuate the harm caused. 8. The parties dispute whether the proposal would represent ‘overdevelopment’, and in this regard the specific nature of the Council’s concern is unclear. Indeed a reasonably large amount of the existing garden space would remain. 9. For the reasons set out above I find that the development would not preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the conservation area, and that with reference to paragraph 196 of the Framework, the development would cause less than substantial harm to its significance. Having regard to the considerable importance and weight to be given to the statutory objective of preservation or enhancement of conservation areas, I find that the development would provide only private benefits; therefore there is no public benefit to weigh against the harm caused. 10. Consequently I conclude that the development would conflict with Policy DM2 of the Island Plan; Isle of Wight Core Strategy (including Waste and Minerals) and Development Management Development Plan Document, March 2012 (the Island Plan), which amongst other things expects development proposals to complement the character of the surrounding area, particularly in conservation areas, and Policy DM11 of the Island Plan, which seeks to support proposals that positively conserve and enhance the special character of the Island’s historic and built environment assets and public realm. Ground Stability 11. The Council’s officer report notes that the site lies in an area of known land instability. Insufficient information was however submitted with the planning application in order to enable an assessment of likely effect to be made. 12. The appellant has provided a ground stability appraisal (GSA) as part of the appeal submissions. This notes that there are no obvious physical signs of ongoing or recent large scale land movement, and that the lightweight timber design of the summerhouse, which requires no foundations, is unlikely to cause instability to the slope. The report takes into account some works already undertaken to provide a level surface. Having viewed the site, I see no reason to disagree with the observations or conclusions within the GSA. Appeal Decision APP/P2114/D/18/3211792 3 13. Therefore I conclude that the proposed development would be in accordance with Policy DM2 of the Island Plan, to the extent that this expects development proposals to provide a safe built environment. Conclusion 14. I conclude that whilst the development would not have an adverse effect on ground stability it would nonetheless fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of Ventnor Conservation Area. The harm caused would be unacceptable. 15. Exercising my duty under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 as amended, I find that in this case material considerations do not indicate that my decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Benjamin Webb INSPECTOR