Demolition of existing double garage and workshop

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 January 2019 by G Roberts BA (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21st March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/U1240/D/18/3216544 Stoneydown Cottage, Rushall Lane, Sturminster Marshall, BH16 6AJ • 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 D Briggs against the decision of East Dorset District Council. • The application Ref 3/18/1876/HOU, dated 12 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 19 September 2018. • The development proposed is demolition of existing double garage and workshop. Erection of 2 storey side extension incorporating garage and workshop. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing double garage and workshop and erection of 2 storey side extension incorporating garage and workshop at Stoneydown Cottage, Rushall Lane, Sturminster Marshall, BH16 6AJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 3/18/1876/HOU, dated 12 July 2018 and subject to the conditions listed in the Annex to this decision. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: (a) Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) and development plan policy; (b) The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and (c) 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 Inappropriate development in Green Belt 3. The appeal site comprises a two-storey pitched roof dwelling with gardens to the front, side and rear. The house dates from the 1930’s and has a rectangular form. There is also a detached double garage and separate workshop. Access is from Rushall Lane. The southern and northern boundaries are characterised by mature trees and hedging. Appeal Decision APP/U1240/D/18/3216544 2 4. Paragraph 145 of the Framework states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate development unless it falls within one of the exceptions listed a) to g) (inclusive). Exception c) confirms that an extension or alteration of an existing building is not inappropriate development provided “it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling”. 5. Saved Policy GB3 of the East Dorset Local Plan (2002) (EDLP) states that extensions to existing buildings will only be allowed where the development does not impact on the openness of the Green Belt and does not dominate the existing dwelling. The supporting text at paragraphs 6.101 – 6.103 further states that extensions of up to 50% of the gross floor area of the dwelling as it existed in February 1980 are likely to be acceptable subject to other considerations. Whilst Policy GB3 of the EDLP pre-dates the Framework, I am satisfied that, insofar as it relates to extensions, it is broadly consistent with the Framework. 6. Paragraph 6.102 of the EDLP indicates that the calculation of new floorspace should apply to the dwelling as it existed in February 1980. Paragraph 145 c) of the Framework also refers to the original dwelling, defined in the Glossary in Annex 2, as the building as it existed on the 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after the 1 July 1948, as it was built originally. Based on this and the evidence before me, which indicates that the house and garage were built in 1935, the existing detached workshop does not form part of the original dwelling and should therefore be excluded from the floorspace calculation. The area that forms the new car port should also be excluded, as it would be open on 3 sides. Moreover, I note that it falls outside the definition of floorspace in the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors Code of Measuring Practice (6th edition), which provides a widely accepted method for calculating floor area. 7. On this basis and adopting the above principles, the appellants measurements in Appendix A to their Appeal Statement indicate that the proposed extension would result in approximately a 62% increase in the gross floor area of the original dwelling. 8. The analysis required by paragraph 145 c) of the Framework is whether the proposed extensions are disproportionate in relation to the ‘size’ of the original dwelling. The proposed increase in volume, external measurements and floorspace, are, therefore, relevant to that assessment. 9. Based on these factors, the proposed extension would represent a disproportionate addition to the original dwelling. This finding is reflected by the significant increase in floorspace, volume and massing compared to the original dwelling. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed extension would be disproportionate to the original dwelling and represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which Paragraph 143 of the Framework states is harmful by definition and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Accordingly, it would fail to accord with Policy GB3 of the EDLP or paragraph 145 c) of the Framework. Openness 10. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and its essential characteristics are therefore its permanence and openness. Due to the location, scale and massing of the Appeal Decision APP/U1240/D/18/3216544 3 proposed extension, the appeal proposal would fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt. The Framework advises at Paragraph 133 that openness is an essential characteristic of Green Belts, and the appeal proposal would therefore cause harm in this regard. Other Considerations 11. The appellant has highlighted two other considerations. Firstly, the benefit of removing the existing detached double garage and workshop. Whilst I accept that their removal would be an improvement, in that this would increase the openness of the site and the buildings themselves are in poor condition and not visually attractive, I would only accord this limited weight. 12. Secondly, a fallback position involving the use of permitted development rights to extend the existing dwelling has been highlighted. 13. Given the implications of this fallback, I invited both parties to comment further. Whilst no new written submissions were forthcoming, the Council provided a copy of a Certificate of Lawful Development granted on the 3 January 2019 under reference 3/18/3114/CLP (CLP). This CLP confirmed that the erection of two single storey side extensions, a single storey rear extension, a rear dormer, a replacement garage and two outbuildings, all on the appeal site, was lawful and permitted development. 14. I am satisfied, based on the approved CLP, the appellants general submissions on this issue and the proposed layout plans, that there is a greater than theoretical possibility of this fallback option being implemented. There is no evidence before me to suggest that this is not a realistic option and when invited, the Council chose not to offer any comments on the fallback. For the above reasons, I accord significant weight to this fallback. 15. Compared to the appeal scheme, the fallback scheme would have a far greater spatial and visual impact on this part of the Green Belt. The three separate extensions combined with the three outbuildings, as well as the new driveway, shown on the fallback, would result in a significant encroachment and intrusion into the Green Belt. I am satisfied that, on balance, the consequent harm to the openness of the Green Belt would be far greater with the fallback than with the appeal scheme. Conditions 16. The Council suggested a number of conditions, some of which I have edited for clarity and enforceability. Conditions relating to the time limit for implementing the development, external materials to match existing where appropriate and compliance with the approved plans, are necessary and reasonable in order to secure a high-quality development and to provide clarity. I also consider that conditions taking away permitted development rights and requiring the demolition and removal of the existing garage/workshop, are reasonable and necessary given the Green Belt location. Overall Balance and Conclusion 17. The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would reduce the openness in this location. The Framework states that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. However, in this case, a realistic fallback position exists that would be more harmful to the Appeal Decision APP/U1240/D/18/3216544 4 Green Belt than the appeal proposal. In these circumstances, I consider that the harm to the Green Belt is clearly outweighed by other considerations. I therefore conclude that very special circumstances exist to justify the grant of planning permission. The development would therefore accord with guidance in the Framework relating to Green Belts. 18. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. G Roberts INSPECTOR Annex - Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 2) All new external work and finishes and work of making good shall match the existing building in respect of materials used, detailed execution and finished appearance, except where indicated otherwise on the approved drawings. 3) This permission is in respect of the following submitted application plans: Drawings No. 065.E.01.G01A, 065.P.01.GA01B, 065.P.01.GA02B, 065.P.01.GA03B & 065.P.01.GA04A The development shall be carried out in accordance with these approved plans unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority. 4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking or re- enacting that Order with or without modification) no development within Article 3, Schedule 2 Class A (enlargement, improvement or alteration), and Class E (incidental buildings) shall be carried out within the application site without the grant of planning permission having first been obtained from the local planning authority. 5) Prior to the occupation or use of the extension hereby permitted, the existing double garage and workshop, as shown on drawing No.065.E.01.G01A, shall be demolished and all demolished materials removed from the site.