New sunroom at 1st floor level

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 June 2019 by Matthew Jones BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 August 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/U1240/D/19/3225239 Spectrum, 32B Beaucroft Lane, Colehill BH21 2PA • 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 N Bishop against the decision of East Dorset District Council. • The application Ref 3/18/3012/HOU, dated 25 October 2018, was refused by notice dated 15 January 2019. • The development proposed is a new sunroom at 1st floor level. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a new sunroom at 1st floor level at Spectrum, 32B Beaucroft Lane, Colehill BH21 2PA, in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 3/18/3012/HOU dated 25 October 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: ASP.17.138.001 E, ASP.17.138.002 G, ASP.17.138.005 E, ASP.17.138.006 E. 3) The materials and finishes to be employed on the external faces of the development, hereby permitted, shall match those of the existing building unless otherwise first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the site’s proximity to the adjacent Green Belt. Reasons 3. Spectrum is a detached property set into the hillside. It sits amongst a collection of modern dwellings with their aspects towards an area of Green Belt to the south, which is separated from the site by a boundary hedge. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) places great importance on the protection of the Green Belt, affording very substantial weight to any harm. In this case the Green Belt is a small area of open land contained on nearly all sides by the built environment, and its contrast with surrounding development defines the character and appearance of the area. 4. When viewed from the south, Spectrum and the adjoining properties collectively provide an ensemble of modern residential development punctuated by glazed Appeal Decision APP/U1240/D/19/3225239 2 openings. The proposed roof extension would be contained within the existing footprint of the property and set back from its south elevation. As such, although Spectrum sits marginally below and forward of its neighbours, the proposal would not extend the built form towards the Green Belt but would be elevated above and beyond it in a location where it would relate most directly to the surrounding built environment. The visual effect of the balcony and the wide glazed opening would be adequately mitigated by their enclosure behind parapet walls. Given these circumstances, the scheme would not prejudice the surrounding landscape nor the open quality of the adjacent Green Belt. 5. I acknowledge the importance of the boundary hedge in providing delineation and screening between the site and the Green Belt in general terms1. However, the proposal would not diminish the separation between the site and the Green Belt nor its open quality regardless of the hedge. 6. I therefore conclude that the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the site’s proximity to the adjacent Green Belt. It would accord with Policies KS3, HE2 and HE3 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan (adopted 2014) in this regard. I also find no conflict with the Framework insofar as it seeks development to be well-designed and protect the natural environment, including the Green Belt. Other Matters 7. I have had regard to matters raised in representations concerning the planning application. The incorporation of the sun room and balcony behind parapet walls and set back within the fabric of the dwelling ensures that additional overlooking towards neighbouring properties would be modest, akin to that existing, and acceptable within this residential environment. There is no substantive evidence that the proposal would lead to a material increase in vehicles accessing the site, nor that such an increase would prejudice highway safety in any event. Conditions 8. In addition to a condition identifying the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt, I agree with the Council that a matching materials condition is necessary to aid assimilation of the development into the dwelling and the surrounding area. Conclusion 9. For the reasons outlined above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Matthew Jones INSPECTOR 1 As identified by the Council and within appeal decision Ref: 2067432