Extensions and new windows to the existing. Some existing windows to be enlarged

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 January 2019 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/Y3615/D/18/3214798 Piccards Farm House, Sandy Lane, Guildford GU3 1HD  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 N Taft against the decision of Guildford Borough Council.  The application, Ref. 18/P/00931, dated 14 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 2 August 2018.  The development proposed is extensions and new windows to the existing. Some existing windows to be enlarged. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a part single / part two storey side and rear extension with the insertion of two side facing dormer windows, balcony and external staircase to the side, following demolition of the existing conservatory; changes to fenestration throughout; new gated entrance and wall along the road with closing off of the existing entrance at Piccards Farm House, Sandy Lane, Guildford in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. 18/P/00931, dated 14 May 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this Decision; 2) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing Nos. 03-01 Rev. B; 03-02 Rev. B; 03-03 Rev. A; 3) No development shall commence until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the extensions and front boundary wall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved samples. Preliminary Matter 2. The Notice of Refusal has altered the description of the proposal from that which appears on the application form. As this amended description has been used by the appellant on the appeal form and summarises the proposal with greater accuracy I have used it in my Decision above. Main Issue 3. The main issues are: (i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Appeal Decision APP/Y3615/D/18/3214798 2 Framework 2018 (‘the Framework’) and any relevant development plan policies, and (ii) the effect of the front boundary wall on the rural and open character of the surrounding area. Reasons Issue (i): Whether Inappropriate Development 4. In respect of issue (i), Paragraph 145 of the Framework explains that Local Planning Authorities should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. However, there are a number of exceptions listed and these include 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. 5. Paragraph 3 of Policy RE2 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (‘the Local Plan’) has a similar objective in stating that the limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings will not be inappropriate development providing it is in accordance with Policies H6 & H9. It is the latter policy to which the Council’s Notice of Refusal refers and this includes criteria that must be satisfied if an extension to a dwelling in the countryside is to be permitted. 6. Criterion 1 of Policy H9 refers to the loss of a small dwelling and this is not relevant in this case. The remaining criteria, nos. 2 (effect on the scale and character of the dwelling); 3 (effect on living conditions for adjoining occupiers) and 4 (effect on adjacent buildings and immediate surroundings) are all dealt with in the officer’s report. And in all three cases it is concluded that the proposal would not have a harmful effect (in the case of criterion 4 this is dealt with under the AONB & AGLV). From my visit to the site and the evidence before me in this appeal I agree with this conclusion. 7. The remaining proviso of Policy H9 is that within the Green Belt there will be a presumption against extensions to dwellings which result in disproportionate additions taking into account the size of the original dwelling, defined as being as it stood on 1 July 1948. In this regard, the Council’s Officer’s Report says that the original floor area of the farmhouse was about 308sqm; that the existing floor area is approximately 447sqm (about a 45% increase over the original), and that the proposed floor area under the appeal scheme would be about 519sqm after the removal of the existing conservatory (approximately 68% cumulatively over the original). 8. However, the 45% and 68% increases include the hay store and the two stable blocks and in both cases I consider that the relevance of these structures as part of the floor area calculation to be doubtful. The hay store is described in the officer’s report as ‘a corrugated flat-roofed outbuilding’ and in the grounds of appeal as ‘a completely open-faced, lightweight timber structure, which can be seen through from all sides….’. Whilst the Courts have established that outbuildings can in principle be regarded as an extension to a dwelling, whether they do in any particular case is a matter of fact and degree, with the salient point being whether they are ‘a normal domestic adjunct’. In making that assessment, factors to include are the outbuildings’ form, actual use and distance from the dwelling. Relevant judgements include Sevenoaks District Council v SSE and Dawe [1997]; Tesco Stores Ltd v Dundee City Council [2012] and Solihull MBC v Black [2013]. Appeal Decision APP/Y3615/D/18/3214798 3 9. Applying the findings of the Courts I consider that in respect of both the hay store and the stables there is considerable doubt whether these buildings can reasonably be regarded as ‘normal domestic adjuncts’ and therefore extensions to the building for the purposes defined in the green belt policies in the Framework and the development plan. In both cases their specific use is an issue, whilst in respect of the hay store it is open to argument whether such a structure can reasonably be regarded as contributing ‘floor area’ to the Farmhouse. As regards the two stable blocks, I am in no doubt that their nearest distance to the Farmhouse of about 35 metres is too great for them to be regarded as ‘extensions’ to the building. 10. The exclusion of these buildings from the relevant Green Belt policies rather begs the question as to the basis of the decision to grant them planning permission, but given that they were and have now been in place for about 40 years this is purely academic. However, as I do not consider them as extensions for the purposes of paragraph 145 of the Framework and Policies RE2 and H9, the proposed increase in floor area over the original building is likely to be less than half of the Council’s estimate. 11. I do not regard this as being a disproportionate addition, and given that the Council also has no objection in respect of criteria 2, 3 and 4 of Policy H9 I conclude that the appeal scheme would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Because of this finding, it is not necessary to consider the effect on openness, a further matter that has been subject to the scrutiny of the Courts. Issue (ii): Front Boundary Wall 12. The Council considers that the proposed wall and gates would form an abrupt barrier in front of the domestic curtilage and have a ‘suburbanising effect’. However, boundary walls are part and parcel of the countryside and in this case the existing hedge is to be retained behind the wall. I consider that its height of 1.2m would be modest and not form too great an enclosure. Accordingly its acceptability or otherwise depends on its materials and detailing. 13. The grounds of appeal include a photograph of a boundary wall outside barns in Littleton Lane in a conservation area. The intention is to replicate this and on this basis I conclude that it would not be harmful to the rural and open character of the area. There would therefore be no conflict with Local Plan Policies G1 & G5 and Section 12: ‘Achieving Well-Designed Places’ in the Framework. Conclusion and Conditions 14. On the first issue I have concluded that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, whilst on the second issue I consider that subject to appropriate materials the proposed front boundary treatment would not have an adverse effect on the rural and open character of the area. I shall therefore allow the appeal. 15. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is needed for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. The Council has indicated an acceptance of a condition stipulating external matching materials on the appeal questionnaire, but for the most part this would not be appropriate. I have therefore replaced it with a Appeal Decision APP/Y3615/D/18/3214798 4 condition requiring the submission of samples of materials with the purpose being to safeguard the character and appearance of the dwelling and the rural character of the area. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR