Proposed extensions and improvements to dwelling, including addition of balcony and new parking and turning area with retaining wall

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 June 2019 by Mr Kim Bennett DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26th June 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/B1415/D/19/3226101 Mill Farm, Mill Lane, Hastings TN35 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 C Attrell against the decision of Hastings Borough Council. • The application Ref HS/FA/18/00952, dated 7 November 2018, was refused by notice dated 20 February 2019 . • The development is the proposed extensions and improvements to dwelling, including addition of balcony and new parking and turning area with retaining wall. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed extensions and improvements to dwelling, including addition of balcony and new parking and turning area with retaining wall at Mill Farm, Mill Lane, Hastings TN35 5DP in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref HS/FA/18/00952, dated 7 November 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: 5838/LBP-1; 5838/EX/1; 5838/EX/2/A; 5838/210/B;5838/211/A and 5838/220. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. 4) No development shall take place above ground until details of the materials, including manufacturer's details, to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension, balcony railings, parking areas and retaining walls hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 5) Prior to the commencement of development, a visual inspection of internal roof spaces shall be carried out by a suitably qualified person to ensure that no roosting bats are present, and the results submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Should any presence of bats be identified, a scheme of mitigation shall also be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. Appeal Decision APP/B1415/D/19/3226101 2 6) Prior to the commencement of development, a survey to determine the presence of any nesting birds shall be carried out by a suitably qualified person and the results submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Should any presence of nesting birds be identified, no external construction activity shall be carried out during the bird nesting months from the beginning of march to the end of July. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area and the natural beauty of the High Weald AONB. Reasons 3. Mill Farm is set in an isolated and elevated location on the eastern side of Mill Lane and with glimpsed but commanding views of the surrounding countryside. It is approached via an unmade track from the south which is also a public footpath, and extends to the north beyond the site. The site is large and rectangular in nature with the former farm buildings located at the southern end and largely concealed from view because of the topography. The original farmhouse has been extended in the past which has effectively doubled its size. A two storey flat roofed rear extension has also been erected on the northern side, with a further single storey flat roof extension beyond that. The property is in a poor state of repair and is currently not lived in. There is a large recently constructed shed adjoining the property to the east, whilst beyond that and in separate ownership, are former farm buildings which are now used as stables. The site lies within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 4. The Council is concerned that the proposal would result in an increase in the suburbanisation of the site, which would be inappropriate given its important and isolated location within the AONB. It would also be at odds with design objectives within the AONB Management Plan, which identifies a key issue of concern as the erosion of character of the AONB through suburbanisation of historic farmsteads which are typically modest. 5. I would agree with the Council’s concerns had the building been one of historic character as existing. However, that is not the case and the two storey rear extension with single storey extension beyond that, has already led to a suburbanising appearance of the site in a rather unfortunate manner. The combined extensions have also altered what originally would have been a modest sized building. In that respect, the current proposal would not increase the footprint of the existing extensions on the northern side, but the proposed pitched roof and tile hung elevations would in my view, go some way to improve the appearance of the building as it currently exists. Whilst it would marginally increase the mass of the building, a double piled pitched roof is not an unusual roof design on historic farmstead buildings. 6. I agree that some of the proposed detailing is not as sympathetic as it could be in terms of the proposed balcony railings and large amount of fenestration on the northern side. However, despite the apparent perception of prominence of the building from its elevated location, that is not actually the case. At my site visit, I made a point of walking the entire length of the adjoining public footpath and approached the site from both north and south. Because of the topography and vegetation, it is not apparent in the landscape and there are Appeal Decision APP/B1415/D/19/3226101 3 only glimpsed views from the footpath near the entrance to the site. However, even from this direction, the views are limited because the building is set down at a lower level than surrounding land, and it is only the roof structure which would be readily apparent. For the reasons above, the pitched roof would be more appropriate than the existing flat roof in that respect. 7. The above findings are borne out by the photographic assessment of the site from a variety of locations to the north and south and in my judgement reinforces the view that despite its isolated location, a combination of distance and topography means it has minimal visual impact upon this part of the AONB. Although I note that the Council has raised concerns that a full landscape assessment was not carried out in accordance with Policy H9 of the Council’s Development Management Local Plan 2015, it seems to me that such requirements need to be proportional to the particular application concerned. In my view, the comprehensive photographic assessment is sufficient in this case, given the small nature of the actual development proposal concerned, to demonstrate the impact, or lack of, on the wider landscape. 8. I note the Council’s references to a recent enforcement appeal in relation to the unauthorised use of the site for holiday accommodation, a mobile home and hardstanding1 but it seems to me that raised different issues to the current proposal which involves alterations to extensions of a property which already exist. 9. Turning to other elements of the proposal, I see no objections to the removal of the porch or alterations to fenestration on the southern side of the building. Because of its set down nature in the land and extensive boundary vegetation, there would only be glimpsed views at best from the adjoining access track to the nearby stables. Similarly, although the Council has raised concerns regarding the two parking spaces, steps and turning area, they are small scale works only, situated in close proximity to and between the farmhouse and adjacent shed and not visible until directly within the immediate area of the works themselves. There would therefore be no wider adverse visual impact arising. 10. I acknowledge that harm to the AONB can go beyond public visual harm and that there can also be harm to the intrinsic character of the AONB. However, given the existing unsympathetic alterations that already exist, the proposal to secure some visual improvement in terms of the roof structure and use of materials, coupled with the lack of any wider visual harm, I consider that on balance, the proposal would be acceptable and that there would be no wider harm to the visual appearance of the area or the wider intrinsic character of the AONB. The development would therefore be in compliance with Policies DM1, HN9 and EN7 of the Council’s Development Management Plan 2015 in that there would be no harm to the character and appearance of the local area or the wider AONB. Although it would be at variance with some objectives within the AONB Management Plan, existing on site issues are a material consideration in this instance as set out above. 11. A preliminary ecological appraisal concluded that no additional surveys were considered necessary and there is no evidence before me to take issue with those conclusions. Some mitigation measures were recommended which could be secured through condition. 1 Appeal ref APP/B1415/C/17/3181116 Appeal Decision APP/B1415/D/19/3226101 4 12. Conditions for the development to be built in accordance with the approved plans and for matching materials, are necessary in the interests of certainty and visual amenity. Conditions relating to further studies for the presence of bats and nesting birds are necessary to safeguard ecological interests. 13. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and planning permission granted. Kim Bennett INSPECTOR