Two storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 June 2019 by J Bell-Williamson MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/B1930/D/19/3225231 55 Napsbury Lane, St Albans AL1 1DU • 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 Barnet against the decision of St Albans City & District Council. • The application Ref 5/18/2805, dated 18 October 2018, was refused by notice dated 27 December 2018. • The development proposed is two storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: • 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; • the effect on the Green Belt with regard to openness and on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area; • if the proposal would be inappropriate development, whether the harm to the Green Belt 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 it; and • whether the proposed extension could be used as a separate unit of accommodation. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a two storey detached dwelling in a row of similar property types, located within the Metropolitan Green Belt. Whether the Proposal is Inappropriate Development 4. The Framework makes clear at paragraph 145 that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, with a small number of exceptions. One of these, 145c), is 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. Appeal Decision APP/B1930/D/19/3225231 2 5. The Council refers to Policies 1 and 13 of its District Local Plan Review 1994, and to Supplementary Planning Guidance, all of which concern development in the Green Belt. Given that these policies and guidance considerably pre-date the Framework, I consider that the more recent national policy in the Framework should be the principal basis for assessing the proposal for the purposes of this issue. 6. The original property has been extended previously in the form of a two storey side and rear extension, and a conservatory. Taken together, the Council indicates that these extensions amount to 102m2 additional floorspace or just over 233m3 by volume, which is a 68% increase. The proposed extension would involve an increase in floorspace of just under 134m2, or just under 476m3 by volume, which amounts to an 89% increase. 7. While an overall increase in area and volume of this magnitude is not an insignificant change by these measures, this should not be the sole basis for considering whether such a change is disproportionate compared to the original building. It is important, therefore, to consider this issue in terms of the scale, bulk, massing and built form that would result from the changes sought. 8. The location of the proposed extension to the side of the house is currently occupied by a single storey garage. This would be replaced by the two storey extension, the upper floor of which would be inset from the side boundary. Despite this inset, the extension would add to the overall width of the dwelling, which has already been altered through the previous changes, and add further bulk at roof level, resulting in a materially larger dwelling than in its original form. The combined effects of the existing and proposed extensions would, therefore, significantly alter the original form of the appeal property to a disproportionate extent. 9. Accordingly, I conclude that due to both the quantitative increase in size resulting from the previous and proposed extensions and the physical effects of the changes already undertaken and those sought here, the proposal would result in a disproportionate degree of change to the original building. It would, therefore, be inappropriate development for the purposes of The Framework referred to above, which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Effect on Openness and Character and Appearance 10. The Framework states that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. I have found above that the proposed side extension would add bulk and mass to the host dwelling, although the development would not increase the building’s height and would occur within a self-contained residential curtilage, which is bounded on each side by existing dwellings. 11. However, the extension would substantively close the gap between the appeal property and its neighbour, No 53. I note that the main parties disagree whether a one metre gap between the shared boundary would be maintained at first floor level, in accordance with the requirements of Policy 72(vii) of the Council’s Local Plan. The plans show that the gap would be entirely closed up to eaves height of the existing property and, therefore, this would result in a material change which would not, in my view, comply with the policy’s intentions. This gap above the existing garage currently provides an important Appeal Decision APP/B1930/D/19/3225231 3 degree of separation between the relatively large dwellings, preserving some openness and views of trees and open land behind. While this is not readily visible from the public realm due to screening by trees and other vegetation to the front of the properties, the loss of open aspect to the side would be apparent from neighbouring properties’ gardens; and, in any case, the effect on Green Belt openness does not rely solely on visibility nor can the permanence of screening planting be guaranteed. 12. The closure of the gap between dwellings would also be uncharacteristic of the street scene comprising the group of detached dwellings of which No 55 is a part. All properties have a characteristic gap to the side, although in some cases this is smaller than others. This is particularly the case with regard to the limited gap between Nos 55 and 57. By effectively closing the gap through the proposed extension to the other side, this would result in a harmful terracing effect where this small group of properties are already relatively close together. This would undermine the characteristic separation that is part of the street scene and which helps to differentiate the built forms of the relatively large detached dwellings, as well as enabling visual relief and open views to the rear. 13. Therefore, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposed extension would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the Green Belt’s openness in this location and on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area. As such, it is contrary to the Framework and to Policy 72(vii) of the Local Plan, as described. This policy is consistent with the Framework, particularly section twelve concerning well-designed places. Other Considerations 14. The appellant refers to a number of other considerations in support of the appeal. I acknowledge that the extension is required to accommodate the appellants’ elderly relative and, more generally, to provide enhanced living space. I give some weight to this consideration in terms of care needs, but it is not sufficient to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt that has been found with regard to the first and second main issues. 15. I give little weight to the contention that similar extensions are commonplace at neighbouring properties. The appellants’ own aerial photographs show substantive gaps remaining between properties, even where single storey extensions have taken place. The extension to No 53 does not provide a useful precedent in this context because in combination with the appeal proposal it would result in the harmful terracing effects described above. 16. The Council indicates that it cannot identify a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide a minimum of five years’ worth of housing, as required by the Framework (paragraph 73). However, in these circumstances, the Framework requires application of paragraph 11(d) to proposals involving the provision of housing (Footnote 7). This case involves an extension to an existing dwelling rather than the provision of housing. In any case, the above findings with regard to the first and second main issues provide a clear reason for refusing the proposal in accordance with paragraph 11(d)i. Appeal Decision APP/B1930/D/19/3225231 4 17. Therefore, while I have carefully considered these other considerations they are not a sufficient reason to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and conflict with national and local policies that I have found would result from the proposal. Separate Unit of Accommodation 18. The extension is intended for occupancy by the appellants’ elderly relative and I note that a door is proposed on the ground floor linking the extension with the main house, providing access for care purposes and a functional relationship between the two parts of the dwelling. However, there is also a separate external door proposed to the front elevation. While I acknowledge the intended use that is proposed in this case, nonetheless the use of the building needs to be considered in the long term as well as in relation to any initial occupation. This is particularly relevant as the extension would include all the necessary facilities for independent living and the internal joining door could in future be blocked up. As such, it is important that it would retain its original purpose and remain tied to use of the main dwelling. 19. An appropriately worded condition could achieve this, which would limit occupancy to a dependant relative or other member of the household in accordance with what is proposed in this case. This would ensure a more direct relationship between the occupation and use of the main house and extension than would be the case with a more general occupancy condition. With such a condition in place, I conclude that the proposed extension could not be utilised as a separate unit of accommodation with no ties to the main house. As such, there would be no conflict in this regard with Policy 12 of the Local Plan, concerning accommodation for relatives, dependants or staff. Overall Conclusion 20. The proposal would represent inappropriate development, which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It would also have an unacceptably harmful effect on Green Belt openness and character and appearance. 21. There are no other considerations raised in support of the development that would outweigh the harm identified to the Green Belt and the other harm, including my findings with regard to the third main issue concerning occupancy. Therefore, very special circumstances do not exist and permission should not be granted as the proposal is contrary to the guidance in the Framework referred to. Accordingly, for the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, it is concluded that the appeal should be dismissed. J Bell-Williamson INSPECTOR