Demolition of garage and single storey rear extension and erection of a two-storey side extension, single storey rear extension and erection of porch at 25 Church Road, Little Berkhamsted, Hertford SG13 8LY

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 April 2019 by Sian Griffiths BSc(Hons) DipTP MScRealEst MRTPI MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4th June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/D/19/3222748 25 Church Road, Little Berkhamsted, Hertford SG13 8LY • 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 Lee Edwards against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. • The application Ref 3/18/1606/HH, dated 12 July 2018, was refused by a notice dated 23 November 2018. • The development proposed is the demolition of garage and single storey rear extension and erection of a two-storey side extension, single storey rear extension and erection of porch at 25 Church Road, Little Berkhamsted, Hertford SG13 8LY. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of garage and single storey rear extension and erection of a two storey side extension, single storey rear extension and erection of porch at 25 Church Road, Little Berkhamsted, Hertford SG13 8LY in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 3/18/1606/HH, dated 12 July 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1712.001 (Location Plan); 1712.054 (First Floor Plans - Proposed); 1712.053 (Ground Floor Plans - Proposed); 1712.055 (Roof Plan - Proposed); 1712.060 (Side Elevation & Section Details- Proposed); 1712.070 (Elevations - Proposed). 3) No development shall commence until an assessment of the risks posed by any contamination, carried out in accordance with British Standard BS 10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - Code of Practice and the Environment Agency’s Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination (CLR 11) (or equivalent British Standard and Model Procedures if replaced), shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. If any contamination is found, a report specifying the measures to be taken, including the timescale, to remediate the site to render it suitable for the approved development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The site shall be remediated in accordance with the approved measures and timescale and a verification report shall be submitted to Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/19/3222552 2 and approved in writing by the local planning authority. If, during the course of development, any contamination is found which has not been previously identified, work shall be suspended and additional measures for its remediation shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The remediation of the site shall incorporate the approved additional measures and a verification report for all the remediation works shall be submitted to the local planning authority within 30 days of the report being completed and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Preliminary Matter 2. I have taken the description of development from the appeal form. I consider this to be a more accurate description of the proposal and removes narrative text from the original description. It is also the description of development used by the Council in their decision and in the appellant’s statement of case. Main Issues 3. The appeal site is located within the Green Belt. The main issues are therefore: (a) whether the appeal proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; (b) the effect of the proposal upon the openness of the Green Belt, and (c) if is in inappropriate, whether any 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 4. The village of Little Berkhamsted is within Green Belt. Policy GBR1 of the East Herts District Plan 2018 (LP) sets out that proposals for development within the Green Belt will be determined in accordance with the provision set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework). (a) whether the appeal proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt 5. The area of Church Road surrounding the appeal site is a residential village street characterised by detached and semi-detached cottage style dwellings laid out in a spacious manner. The appeal site is one part of two pairs of semi- detached cottages with dormer windows at first floor level. The other three dwellings in the same row have all been altered and extended over recent years to different degrees. 6. The Framework, at paragraph 145 sets out that the construction of new buildings in Green Belt is inappropriate, unless the (specified) exceptions to this are met. At paragraph 145 c) there is an exception where the proposed development is for an extension or alteration that would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 7. The proposal would add an additional two storeys of living space with a side extension and a rear extension that would run across the full width of the dwelling. The key issue here is therefore whether the proposals would Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/19/3222552 3 constitute a disproportionate addition, having regard to the size of the original building. The original building was small and from the appellant’s submissions did not include the first-floor side extension or the single storey garage to the side of the property. Having taken account of the built form proposed to be demolished, I consider that the appeal proposals would result in a net increase in floorspace. This is reinforced by the detail of Plan 1712-053 (Ground Floor as Proposed) which shows the existing outline of the dwelling and garage with the new extensions shown. Taken together with the proposed first floor additions, I consider the proposed development constitutes a disproportionate addition above and beyond the original dwelling and it therefore constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. (b) the effect of the proposal upon the openness of the Green Belt 8. Paragraph 133 of the Framework states that a fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl and keep land permanently open and the essential characteristics of Green Belt are their openness and permanence. 9. I consider that the proposed development would result in harm to the openness of the Green Belt, although the harm would be limited, as the proposal would also remove the garage from the rear/side garden area and would result in a more consolidated form of development. 10. Albeit small, there would still be a conflict with policy GBR1 of the LPand the Framework. Other considerations 11. I have found that the scheme proposed comprises inappropriate development, which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 12. I consider the demolition of the unsympathetic and incongruous first floor extension counts in favour of the appeal. The proposed extension would significantly improve the appearance of the property, rebalance the semi and enhance the street scene. This is a positive benefit to which I attach considerable weight. 13. As a result, the proposals would represent an improvement on the existing situation in terms of character and appearance. 14. I also consider the demolition of the single storey garage to the rear of the property also counts in favour of the appeal. Its removal would have the benefit of consolidating development on the site, resulting in less overall sprawl. This weighs in favour of the proposal. The appellants also claim there would be a benefit associated with the removal of asbestos within the garage and I concur with this. 15. These aspects are considerations that count in favour of allowing the appeal. (d) whether any 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 Appeal Decision APP/J1915/W/19/3222552 4 16. The proposed extension would, having regard to the development plan and the Framework, constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. There would also be some harm to the openness of this part of the Green Belt. However, the removal of the existing garage, consolidation of development on the site and the removal of the incongruous first floor extension are material considerations to which I afford considerable weight. Given that the impact on the openness of the Green Belt would be limited, I consider the other considerations of sufficient weight to clearly outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness. Thus, very special circumstances necessary to justify the development proposed have been demonstrated. Accordingly, whilst there would be conflict with the development plan, the balance of planning considerations in this case lead me to the view that the appeal should succeed. Conclusions 17. The Council have put forward conditions should the appeal be allowed. I have had regard to these in light of the tests in the Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance. I have imposed a standard condition which limits the lifespan of the planning permission and I have specified the approved plans, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. Finally, I have included a further condition which relates to the presence of asbestos within the roof of the existing garage structure, as highlighted by the Council. This is required prior to the commencement of development, because of the potential for health impact. 18. For the reasons given above, and taking into account all other matters raised, I consider the appeal should be allowed. Sian Griffiths INSPECTOR