First floor side extension over flat roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 March 2019 by Ann Skippers BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9th April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/B1930/D/18/3217867 4 Sauncey Wood, Harpenden, Hertfordshire AL5 5DP • 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. T. Zarook against the decision of St Albans City Council. • The application Ref 5/18/2445, dated 10 September 2018, was refused by notice dated 6 November 2018. • The development proposed is “first floor side extension over flat roof”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of development plan policy and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF); • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • if it is inappropriate development, whether the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Reasons Whether the proposal is inappropriate development 3. Paragraph 145 of the NPPF regards the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. One of several exceptions is the extension or alteration of a building provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The NPPF does not offer any advice on what might be regarded as “disproportionate” or not, but refers to “size”. 4. The Council cites Policy 1 and Policy 13 of the St Albans District Local Plan Review 1994 (LP) in its reason for refusal. The LP predates the NPPF which indicates in such circumstances that due weight should be given to policies according to their degree of consistency with the NPPF. Appeal Decision APP/B1930/D/18/3217867 2 5. LP Policy 1 does not refer to extensions, but indicates that regard should be had to other policies including Policy 13. LP Policy 13 refers to extensions indicating they should be modest in scale and visually well integrated with its rural surroundings and not harm the ecology, natural beauty and amenity of the countryside or nearby dwellings. It explains that extensions may be permitted unless the scale or visual impact on the original building would create a building of significantly larger or different character. There is therefore a reference to the size of the resulting building reminiscent of the NPPF, but the other references do not reflect the stance of the NPPF. I consider that only limited weight can be given to LP Policies 1 and 13 and that greater weight should be given to the up to date requirements of the NPPF. 6. Reference is made to the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) Residential Extensions and Replacement Dwellings in the Green Belt dated May 2004. This document is also of some age and relates directly to the requirements of Policy 13. Therefore I give limited weight to the SPG. 7. However, the SPG does provide some guidance on what the Council considers to be acceptable size wise. At Table 2, it indicates as a guide, an extension of up to 90 to 180 cubic metres or 20 – 40% floor space increase may be acceptable. Therefore the SPG can be viewed as a starting point for this appeal. 8. No 4 has been previously extended including by a large conservatory allowed on appeal. Permission was also granted for a part two storey, part first floor side extension under reference 5/18/0890. Whilst the Council indicate that at the time of their determination, this recently granted extension had not been constructed, an extension was being constructed at the time of my visit. 9. The appeal proposal would provide an additional bedroom. The Council advises that the proposal would result in an increase of about 86% and be in excess of the 180 cubic metres envisaged in the SPG. I am mindful that the SPG itself indicates these are not rigid guidelines and that other extensions in excess of these amounts have been permitted elsewhere. 10. In comparing the original dwelling to the dwelling it would become should this proposal be permitted, the previous additions including this proposal, the proposal would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling. In reaching this view, I have taken into account that the proposal would provide an additional bedroom at first floor level. In my judgment the proposal would be a disproportionate addition to the original dwelling. 11. Consequently the proposal would be inappropriate development that is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and in conflict with the NPPF. I attach substantial weight to this harm. The effect on the openness of the Green Belt 12. Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. Not solely limited to visual matters, it also has a spatial aspect which can be taken to mean the absence of built form. 13. The proposal would not increase the footprint of the building. The dwelling is relatively inconspicuous set on a large plot secluded by trees at the head of a cul-de-sac. Although the dwelling’s location and setting would help to Appeal Decision APP/B1930/D/18/3217867 3 moderate the effect on openness, the proposal would change the appearance of the property with the loss of some articulation of the main building adding some bulk. This would increase the visual impact of the property albeit from limited vantage points. 14. I note that the Council considers the proposal “compares moderately” with the other criteria in the SPG. I accept that the design is appropriate and the proposal would appear as a subordinate feature. The visual impact would be minimal, but this still means there would be some harm to openness as it cannot be preserved, in addition to the harm arising from the inappropriate development and I attach considerable weight to this harm. Other considerations 15. I note that no objections were received from the Parish Council (provided the 40% is not exceeded) or nearby occupiers. No objections are raised by the Council on parking or amenity grounds. These matters are neutral and do not weigh for or against the proposal. Green Belt balance 16. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. Thus, when considering any planning application, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. That is a high hurdle to overcome. In this appeal I have found harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness and to its openness. Balanced against that are the other considerations referred to above. They, for the reasons given, do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. 17. The very special circumstances necessary to justify the development have not been demonstrated. Consequently the proposed development conflicts with the NPPF and with the aims of LP Policies 1 and 13. Conclusion 18. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I conclude the appeal should not succeed. Ann Skippers INSPECTOR