Proposed extensions to form swimming pool

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 March 2019 by Chris Baxter BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12 April 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/E2734/D/18/3218863 Fairview Barn, Brackenthwaite Lane, Pannal HG3 1PL • 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 Paul Turner against the decision of Harrogate Borough Council. • The application Ref 18/03061/FUL, dated 26 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 12 November 2018. • The development proposed is described as “proposed extensions to form swimming pool.” Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The appeal site is within the Green Belt and so the main issues are: i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and development plan policy; ii) the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; iii) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building and Crimple Valley Special Landscape Area (SLA); iv) if the proposal is inappropriate, 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 3. Policy H15 of the Harrogate District Local Plan (LP) detailed in the Council’s decision notice, does not specifically relate to Green Belt proposals. Policy EQ2 of the Harrogate District Core Strategy (CS), also detailed in the decision notice refers to the natural and environment and Green Belt and states that the extent and detailed boundaries of the West Yorkshire and York Green Belts in the District will not be changed. Appeal Decision APP/E2734/D/18/3218863 2 4. Paragraph 145 of the Framework states that Council’s should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt, unless the development falls within the exceptions list. This list 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. The Council considers the proposal, together with previous extensions, represents disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 5. Fairview Barn was formerly agricultural buildings which have been converted into a residential property. A plan has been submitted which indicates the buildings that previously were present on site, prior to the conversion of the buildings, and those which have been demolished. The appellants indicates that these demolished buildings should form part of the original building size. 6. However, these demolished buildings do not form part of the residential unit which is now present. There has been a substantial change in the site since the agricultural buildings were converted into residential accommodation. I therefore have taken the ‘original building’ to mean the part of the agricultural building that was retained and subsequently converted, and that would form the baseline against which subsequent extensions and alterations should be measured. 7. The proposed extension would have a footprint of 122 square metres (sqm). It is not clear from the information before me, the actual size of the original building. However, from the submitted plans and my observations at my site visit I consider that the proposal, combined with the previous additions, an extension measuring 42 sqm and a garage of 88 sqm, would result in additions to the original building that would be disproportionate. 8. The proposed development would therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would conflict with paragraph 145 of the Framework. Openness 9. The Framework makes clear that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It also states that one of the essential characteristics of Green Belt is their openness. 10. The proposed extension is no higher than the existing building however, it would be visible from the immediate surrounding area as well as the wider area. The openness of the Green Belt is clearly evident around the existing building and in that the bulk of the building would be increased by additional built development, then the proposal would reduce openness. The incremental enlargement of built development in this location would have a small but negative effect on the openness of the Green Belt. Paragraph 133 of the Framework indicates that openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. For this reason, there would be a degree of harm arising from this, in addition to that arising from the inappropriate nature of the development. Character and appearance 11. The host property is a barn conversion with traditional architectural detailing and a simple roof form. The appeal site also sits within the SLA which is an area of high-quality landscape. Appeal Decision APP/E2734/D/18/3218863 3 12. The appellant has indicated that the proposal would be similar to the existing lean-to extension on the east elevation. The proposal however, is larger in scale and positioning, and the inverted roof would not be in keeping with the existing roofs. The proposal would appear as an incongruous feature that would sit uncomfortably against the traditional form of the existing building. 13. The proposal would be located within the curtilage of the residential property and would be visible from nearby properties and within the wider area. The unsympathetic form of the proposed extension would be intrusive and have an adverse effect on the character of the surrounding landscape. 14. The proposal would be a discordant structure and would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host building and the SLA. The proposal therefore fails to comply with Policies C2, C9 and C16 of the CS which seeks to ensure development does not harm the character and appearance of the countryside and building itself and protect the high landscape qualities of the Special Landscape Areas. Other considerations 15. I have had regard to the appellants statement of case which identifies that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, footpaths, public rights of way or local biodiversity. These matters however, would not outweigh the harm identified to the Green Belt. Conclusions 16. The proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the Framework establishes that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. The proposed extension would result in loss to the openness of the Green Belt. Even when taking together the other considerations detailed above, they do not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Consequently, very special circumstances that are necessary to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt do not exist and the development is contrary to the Framework. 17. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Chris Baxter INSPECTOR