an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Transcription

1 Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 September 2011 by R J Maile BSc FRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 4 October 2011 Appeal Ref: APP/G2245/D/11/ Grove Cottage, Shelleys Lane, Knockholt, Kent, TN14 7PH. 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 Tony Birch against the decision of. The application ref: SE/11/01006/FUL, dated 12 April 2011, was refused by notice dated 16 June The development proposed is single storey rear conservatory. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear conservatory at Grove Cottage, Shelleys Lane, Knockholt, Kent, TN14 7PH, in accordance with the terms of the application ref: SE/11/01006/FUL, dated 12 April 2011, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) No development shall take place until details and samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the conservatory hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Plan: scale 1:2500. Drawing no. W : Drawing no. W : Existing floor plan and elevations scale 1:100. Proposed floor plan and elevations scale 1:100. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are:

2 Appeal Decision APP/G2245/D/11/ a) Whether the proposal is inappropriate development for the purposes of PPG 2 1 and Development Plan policy. b) The effect of the development upon the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it. c) If the development 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 a) Whether inappropriate development. 3. Grove Cottage is one of a pair of semi-detached bungalows in a rural location beyond the village of Knockholt and within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The bungalow is constructed of part brick and part UPVC shiplap boarded elevations beneath a tiled roof. A single storey extension of brick and tile has been constructed to the rear pursuant to planning permission granted in There is some doubt as to the form of the original dwelling, which from the evidence of the rear brick wall, may well be Victorian or even earlier. 5. National guidance in PPG 2 sets out a general presumption against inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Such development should not be approved, except in very special circumstances (paragraph 3.1). It is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations (paragraph 3.2). 6. The construction of new buildings inside a Green Belt is inappropriate unless it is for one of the purposes clearly specified in the guidance, including the limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings (paragraph 3.4). This exception is further defined in paragraph 3.6, which states: Provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, the extension or alteration of dwellings is not inappropriate in Green Belts. 7. Saved Policy H14A of the Development Plan 2 requires, at Criterion 2), that the gross floor area of the existing dwelling plus the gross floor area of the extension should not exceed that of the original dwelling by more than 50 per cent. 8. There is conflicting evidence as to the form and floor area of the original dwelling in this case. Nevertheless, by reference to the Council s records and taking into account the extension that has been built to the rear the proposed conservatory would, in all probability, exceed the 50 per cent tolerance as permitted by saved Policy H14A (2). 1 Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts. 2 The Sevenoaks District Local Plan (2000). 2

3 Appeal Decision APP/G2245/D/11/ I therefore find on the first issue that the proposal represents inappropriate development for the purposes of PPG 2 and Development Plan policy. b) Effect upon openness of Green Belt. 10. The conservatory would be located to the rear of Grove Cottage and be wholly contained by the bulk of the existing bungalow and by the substantial property to the northwest (Hillside). The steeply rising rear garden of Grove Cottage and the woodland beyond will ensure that the conservatory will not impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. c) Other considerations. 11. I have been provided with extracts from Ordnance Survey sheets dating back to These clearly show a pair of properties existing on the current site of Grove Cottage and Hillside next door. It is unlikely that these would have been bungalows and more than probable that they comprised two storey cottages. My site visit also revealed that the rear wall of the bungalow is constructed of solid brickwork. This supports the evidence of the Ordnance Survey extracts that a pair of dwellings existed on site well before In further support of the proposal I have noted that the conservatory, at 17.2m 2, is of a modest size and would be subservient to the rear elevation, with a low eaves and ridge height. It would also be sited away from the boundary with Hillside next door. That property has been the subject of substantial extensions far in excess of those at Grove Cottage, including two storey structures and a detached garage with accommodation over. Green Belt balancing exercise 13. It is far from certain that the original dwelling that existed on the site would have been single storey. The calculations of floor area upon which the Council has relied in formulating its decision are therefore open to doubt. 14. The low key conservatory would be modest in size and subservient to Grove Cottage. It would also be wholly screened from public view. These factors, in combination, clearly outweigh the totality of harm that would be caused by reason of inappropriateness and provide the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Conclusion 15. For the above reasons, and looking at the case as a whole, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. Conditions 16. Condition 1 is necessary to ensure compliance with Section 91(1) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act Condition 2 is imposed in order that the materials to be used in the construction of the conservatory are appropriate, bearing in mind the location of Grove Cottage within the Green Belt. 17. As to Condition 3, otherwise than as set out in this permission and conditions it is necessary that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the 3

4 Appeal Decision APP/G2245/D/11/ approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. 18. All of the conditions imposed meet the tests of Circular 11/95 3 as to need and reasonableness. R. J. Maile INSPECTOR 3 Circular 11/95: The Use of Conditions in Planning Permissions. 4

5 Homeowner Planning Appeal For Mr T. Birch at Grove Cottage Shellys Lane Knockholt Kent TN14 7PH

6 Introduction The Planning Application The Application Process The Existing Site and Context Photographs Planning Policy The Appeal Conclusions Appendix UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

7 Introduction UK Planning Appeals have been commissioned by the applicant Mr Tony Birch to submit an appeal on his behalf following Sevenoaks District Council s refusal of the recent application to construct a single storey rear conservatory. The Agent for the application was IWA of 168 Birch Road, Cuxton, Rochester, Kent ME2 1HB. The application was submitted on 21st April 2011 and registered under application reference SE/11/01006/FUL. The Application was refused under delegated powers on 16 June The reason given for refusal was as follows - 1) The land lies within Green Belt where strict policies of restraint apply. The proposal would be inappropriate development harmful to the maintenance of the character of the Green Belt and to its openness. This conflicts with Government advice in the form of Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (Green Belts), policy SP5 of the South East Plan and Policy H14A of the Sevenoaks District local plan. UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

8 The Planning Application Plans included with the application were as follows - 1:2500 Site location plan UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

9 :100 Plan and elevations as existing UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

10 :100 Plans and elevations as proposed UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

11 The Application Process The Case Officers Report describes the application site as an isolated modestly sized semi detached bungalow located some 200 metres north of the junction with Main Road in Knockholt. The application proposal is to construct a single storey rear extension 5.23 metres deep and to be in line with the existing outer most rear elevation of the dwelling and 3.3 metres in width set to the western side of the existing rear wing of the building and to the rear of the narrow section of the existing building and about 1.7 metres of the boundary to the neighbouring property. The extension is a conservatory with a glass north western and south western elevation with a glass double pitched roof. The conservatory has an eaves height of 2.5 metres and a ridge height of 3.4 metres with a brick plinth to the two glazed elevations of 0.9 metres. The Council confirmed the applicable constraints are the fact the land falls within a green belt area. The Planning Policies that have been applied by the Council in assessing the application are as follows: South East Plan Policy SP5 Green Belts H 5 - Housing Density and Design Seven Oaks District Local Plan EN1 - General Principles H6B - Residential extensions H14A Residential Development in the Green Belt Core Strategy SP1 - Design of New Development LO8 - The Countryside and the Rural Economy 3.5 The Planning History of the property confirmed that Alterations and Extensions were approved to the property in 1996 under application references SE/96/ UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

12 Consultations were sought from Knockholt Parish Council and they confirmed their support. No representations were received from neighbours and we know from speaking with them that the application has their support. The Council go on to confirm that the issue for them is Development within the Green Belt. Such development should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. The construction of new buildings is inappropriate unless, amongst other things, it is for the limited replacement or extension of an existing building. Policy H14A provides a local interpretation of what is an appropriate extension to dwellings within Green Belt. It lists a number of criteria with which extensions to dwellings within the Green Belt must comply. This includes the criteria that the gross floor area of the existing dwelling plus the gross floor area of the extension must not exceed the gross floor area of the original dwelling by more than 50%. The design of the extension should also be sympathetic and well articulated The Council states that from early Ordnance Survey Maps it would appear that the original bungalow on site was a very modest building measuring some 63m2 in total floor area. The current application proposal when added to previous alterations would amount to 109 m2 which represents a 175% increase over the original total gross floor area. This is well in excess of the policy limitation and in the Case Officers view represents a disportionate increase over and above the original dwelling on site. As a result the proposals would represent inappropriate development and they would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. The proposals are therefore unacceptable in principle and no special circumstances have been advanced in support of the application. The Council then commented on other matters which would have been relevant in their view if the Green Belt issues they had raised had not applied to this application. UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

13 3.91 Impact on Streetscene and locality Policy EN1 of the SDLP identifies a broad range of criteria to be applied in the consideration of planning applications. Criteria 1 states that the form of the buildings or extensions, should be compatible in terms of scales, height, density and site coverage with other buildings in the locality. The design should be in harmony with adjoining buildings and incorporate materials and landscaping of a high standard. The Council conclude on this issue that the proposals would be set back from the street and as located to the rear would not be visible to public view. The conservatory would, in itself be modest in size and seen in the context of the existing buildings would have no significant impact on the wider landscape character of the area Impact on Residential Amenity Criteria 3 of policy EN1 of the Sevenoaks District Local Plan states that the proposed development must not have an adverse impact on the privacy and amenities of a locality by reason of form, scale, height, outlook, noise or light intrusion or activity levels including vehicular or pedestrian movements. Appendix 4 to H6B also states that proposals should not result in material loss or privacy, outlook, daylight or sunlight to habitable rooms or private amenity space of neighbouring properties or have a detrimental visual impact or over bearing effect on neighbouring properties. With this policy consideration the Council confirm that the boundary between Grove Cottage and the adjoining neighbouring, Hillside is formed by a high close boarded timber fence. As a result only the glazed roof of the Conservatory would be visible from the patio and adjacent windows (which mostly face to the rear south west) away from the proposals. Seen in the context of the existing building the Case Officer confirms that he does not consider that the Conservatory would appear overbearing or result in any significant loss of light. As a result he considers that the impact on residential amenity is acceptable The Case Officers conclusions in his report that the proposed extension, though modest in itself, adds to the already signifi- UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

14 cant extensions to the original dwelling. These proposals represent in appropriate development and are by definition unacceptable in principle. Again, although the bulk may be modest it clearly adds to the physical bulk on the site and would thus be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore, notwithstanding the lack of harm to the wider locality or neighbouring occupier, I would recommend refusal on Green Belt grounds. UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

15 The Existing Site and Context Although it was not made clear on the application drawings the Appeal site is a semidetached property which we understand was built originally in the 1830 s. They appear to have been equally sized single storey properties in their original form which have now both been extended in different ways. The Council have referred to early OS maps which they say are unclear but determined an original total floor area of 63m2. We have studied the early ordnance survey plans and have attached copies in this statement and we firmly believe the Council have incorrectly interpreted the situation. 4.3 The 1871, 1885, 1896, 1909 and 1938 plan (refer to Appendix A) shows two dwellings with an unusual boundary arrangement. The front boundary is to the northern end of the two plots and the rear boundary comes off the central party wall line, but cranks in an unusual way all of which does not reflect what is on site today. The footprint and layout is more akin to two estate cottages or workers cottages which would have then been two storey structures with perhaps two rooms 3 on the ground floor and two / three rooms at first floor. The plan layouts were often taken from a typical design model and of course 5 at that time there would be no bathroom etc. If that is the case the original total floor area could be up to two times the suggested figure in the Case Officers report of 63m2. That would equate to 126m2 which of course is larger than the current ground floor area of the current bungalow before it was extended in the 1990 s. By our calculation using the 1:100 ground floor plan supplied with the application we make that figure to be 98m2 for each of the two properties before later extensions were added The later Ordnance Survey plans for 1970 and 1983 (refer to Appendix A) show a larger L shaped property which presumably reflects the massive two storey extension that was added alongside the neighbouring dwelling in the late 1960 s or early 1970 s. UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

16 These plans do not seem to accurately reflect what is on the ground and can clearly be seen from the Google satellite images and the views taken from the street. Google satellite image - neighbouring dwelling (left) + Grove Cottage (right). UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

17 Google street view of Grove Cottage Google street view of neighbouring cottage along with its 1960 s / 1970 s large extension (right). UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

18 4.5 As noted earlier we believe the cottages were first built in the 1830 s. The footprint of each would be too small to be for servant or workers cottages as there would be only two ground floor room s perhaps plus pantry / larders etc. Single storey dwellings in this sort of location would be very unusual at that time if built by an estate or for workers cottages, as they virtually always included at least a first floor plan. Single storey structures were used for gate lodges, although they too could be two storeys or perhaps gardeners or other cottages set off a main access carriage driveway which leads up to a large house. They were often kept low, but would have had a slightly larger footprint to include say two small bedrooms. It could be that the cottages were built to serve the chalk pit noted on the earlier plans which sits in front of the plots or had some other function. They are set on the outskirts of the village of Knockholt and may have been for agricultural workers attached to a large farm or estate. The difficulty is that it is unclear as to exactly what they were like and the footprint size shown on the earlier maps does not reflect what is on site today, putting later extensions to one side We believe the answer could be that the original two storey semi detached cottages could have been demolished and rebuilt either in the late 1930 s or the late 1940 s / early 1950 s as larger footprint but single storey bungalows in the same general location as the current buildings. At that time the site / plot boundaries were also redefined showing a straight line central split which is what is to be seen on site today. The Appeal site is the smaller of the two plots. The 1:500 block plan included with the application shows a plot width of around 14.5 metres which widens slightly where it joins Shelley s Lane to around 18.5 metres. The property is set back from the road by around 9.5 metres and is well screened by existing planting. The rear garden is extensive, but is not clearly defined on the 1:500 block plan noted above. The neighbouring plot is much larger as it includes the triangular piece of land extending to the north west of the property bounded by Shelley s Lane. As with the appeal site this plot is surrounded by mature planting but it has a more open aspect to the north west where it has a hedge boundary to the Lane. UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

19 It is clear that both properties have been extended which can be seen from the satellite image. What is slightly more surprising is the amount of extension that has been added to the neighbouring plot. It sits quite comfortably on the plot and has a good aspect to the garden and the lane but in floor area terms it must have more than doubled the original footprint as defined by the Council. Also, in addition to this, a large 2 storey garage block with additional accommodation has been built in the North West corner of the neighbours curtilage. This was probably constructed around the same time as the 2 storey extension. The question to be asked is whether it can be judged to be harmful to its green belt setting. In our opinion its simple design and shape works well together with its link to the bungalow area. It is discreet and sits neatly into the site with its backdrop of the wooded hillside. It has no impact on neighbouring plots or amenity and overall is a successful addition to the property to meet the needs of the occupiers of that property. It is a successful extension which has no impact on the setting of the Green Belt. UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

20 5.0 Photographs 5.1 Front elevation of Grove Cottage 5.2 Front elevation of neighbouring cottage. UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

21 5.3 Extension to neighbouring cottage 5.4 Extension to neighbouring cottage (right), neighbouring cottage (left). UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

22 5.5 Side elevation, extension to neighbouring cottage. 5.6 Separate two storey garage block with additional accommodation within neighbours curtilage. UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

23 5.7 Rear elevation, extension to neighbouring cottage. 5.8 Location for proposed conservatory to rear of Grove Cottage. UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

24 5.9 View from Grove Cottage garden towards neighbouring cottage 5.10 Rear elevation, extension to neighbouring cottage. UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

25 Planning Policy The Council confirmed that the Appeal site proposal adequately satisfied policy EN1 of the SDLP with regards to impact on streetscene and locality. The Case Officer confirmed that the proposals would be set back from the street and as located to the rear would not be visible form public view. The conservatory would, in itself, be modest in size and seen in the context of the existing buildings would have no significant impact on the wider Landscape Character of the area. 6.2 The Council also confirmed that the requirement of Criteria 3 of policy EN1 of the SDLP including Appendix 4 to H6B would also be complied with. The Case Officer stated that the boundary between Grove Cottage and the adjoining neighbouring, Hillside is formed by a high close boarded timber fence. Thus only the glazed roof to the Conservatory would be visible from the patio and adjacent windows (which mostly face to the rear south west) away from the proposals. Seen in the context of the existing building, I do not consider the conservatory would appear overbearing or result in any significant loss of light. Thus I consider the impact on residential amenity to be acceptable The Policies stated in the Reason for Refusal were as follows - Core Strategy Policy SP5 adopted by the Council in February Housing Policy SP5 states - Housing Size and Type The Council will expect new housing development to contribute to a mix of different housing types in residential areas tak- UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

26 ing into account the existing pattern of housing in the area, evidence of local need and site specific factors. It will seek the inclusion of small units (less than three bedrooms) in new development schemes in suitable locations to increase the proportion of smaller units in the District housing stock. The Council will seek the provision of an increased proportion of housing designed to the lifetime homes standard that can be readily adapted to meet the needs of older people and people with disabilities. Sheltered housing and extra care housing for people with special needs will be encouraged on suitable sites in areas close to a range of services that provide for the needs of future occupants. The policy confirms that the council are pursuing a range of housing initiatives to make better use of existing housing stock. This small extension would simply do just that. It would discreetly meet the needs of the owners and provide good space with views over the rear garden. It has no impact on neighbours or the local context and cannot be seen from public view. It would be entirely acceptable to the Council if they had not refused it on Green Belt grounds to note in more detail below Policy H14A of the Local Plan July 2008 confirms the following with regards to Extension of Existing Dwelling- Proposals to extend an existing dwelling in the Green Belt must comply with Policy EN1 and with the following criteria: 1) The existing dwelling was designed and originally constructed for residential use and built on permanent foundations on the site; 5 2) The gross floor area of the existing dwelling plus the gross floor area of the extension does not exceed the gross floor area of the original dwelling by more than 50%; 3) The proposed extension would not facilitate the creation of a separate residential unit; 4) The design of the extension is sympathetic and well articulated to the existing dwelling and does not result in a large, bulky UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

27 or intrusive building in the landscape; 5) Extensions to mobile homes and buildings not designed for permanent residential use will not be permitted, neither will proposals to extend a converted dwelling; 6) Proposals to extend a replacement of an original dwelling will only be permitted if the gross floor area of the replacement dwelling plus the gross floor area of the extension does not exceed the gross floor area of the original building by more than 50%. For the purposes of Policy H14A gross floor area of the original dwelling will be ascertained by external measurement and shall include any garage or domestic outbuilding (incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling) within the curtilage of the dwelling, if any part of that building lies within 5m of any part of the dwelling. All habitable floorspace of the building will be included which is useable without major reconstruction. Original means the dwelling and domestic outbuildings as existing on 1st July 1948; or if no dwelling existed on that date, then original means the dwelling as first built after 1st July 1948, i.e. excluding in either case any extensions or outbuildings built after 1st July 1948 or first completion. Looking at that Policy the Appeal site complies with all of the following- 1) The existing dwelling was clearly designed and originally constructed for residential use and is built on permanent foundations on the site. 2) The proposed extension would not facilitate the creation of a separate residential unit, it would remain a single family dwelling. 3) The design of the extension is low key, appropriate, sympathetic and well articulated to the existing dwelling and does not result in large, bulky or intrusive building in the landscape. This is confirmed by the Council. 4) The extension is not to a mobile home or none permanent building. 5) It is unclear if the existing building is already a replace- UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

28 ment building. It is highly likely that it is but what the situation was on 1st July 1948 the baseline date is undocumented. In any event the text for extensions to replacement dwellings still relies on a proposed limit of 50% of the original dwelling whatever that was The Council have refused the application on the basis the gross floor area of the dwelling after the extension has been built will be greater than 150% of the gross floor area of the original dwelling. It confirms for Policy H14A gross floor area of the original dwelling will be ascertained by external measurement and shall include any garage or domestic outbuildings (incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling) within the curtilage of the dwelling, if any part of that building lies within 5m of any part of the dwelling. All habitable floorspace of the building will be included which is useable without major reconstruction. Original means the dwelling and domestic outbuildings as existing on 1st July 1948 or if no dwelling existed on that date then original means the dwelling as first built after 1st July 1948 i.e. excluding in either case any extensions or outbuildings built after 1st July 1948 or first completion. Planning Policy Guidance 2 Green Belts As we know Green Belt Policy was first introduced in 1955 and there is now around 14 separate Green Belts, varying in size from 486,000 hectares around London to just 700 hectares at Burton on Trent. The fundamental aim of Green Belt Policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and the above document states five purposes for including land in Green Belts. To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas To prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one an other To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

29 To preserve the setting and special character of historic towns To assist in urban regeneration by encouraging the recy cling of derelict and other urban land Visual Amenity The policy confirms the visual amenities of the Green Belt should not be injured by proposals for development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt which although they would not prejudice the purposes of including land in Green Belts might be visually detrimental by reason of their siting, materials and design. We have already established that the Council have no issues with loss of visual amenity in the case of the Appeal proposal. UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

30 The Appeal Under Green Belt Policy different local Authorities throughout the Country have determined different ways of dealing with residential extensions within Green Belt. Under the same national controlling policies many local Authorities have set what is in most cases a Guidance Limit for extending existing dwellings. Seven Oaks District Council have defined a 50% area allowance some council s go as low as 20% and others as high as 75% which is then liberally interpreted (Bridgenorth District Council is one such Authority). A number of Councils have not set a guidance limit they have perhaps more usefully stated that each application proposal will be assessed on the merits of the individual case. A few authorities who have recognised that bulk and mass is perhaps more important in Green Belt locations and not floor space have used a volume percentage limit. This then has often lead to difficulties as the Authority has been flooded with an unwanted large amount of applications for flat roofed extensions which seeks to maximise the extended floor area rather than loose area in an unused roof void. The detail of the limit is always a moot point and on occasions it can be difficult for the parties to clearly define what was the floor area at the 1st July 1948 start date. We have had a number of instances in the past with various Councils where out buildings including coal houses, sheds etc that fell within 5 metres of the dwelling and existed in 1948 but were subsequently demolished. In the Appeal case the Council are also unsure as to what the base area is and has had to rely on old Ordnance Survey plans. Clearly these palns do not show clearly what the building was like, whether it had more than one storey etc, a pitched or flat roof etc which would all help to determine what was the base floor area or the base volume depending upon which rules apply. 7.3 It is clear that the neighbouring dwelling, which at one time was an equivalent dwelling to the Appeal site dwelling was massively extended within the same Green Belt in the 1960 s / 1970 s without causing any harm to the Green Belt. Also, probably around UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

31 the same time, a large separate 2 storey garage block with additional accommodation was erected within the curtilage of the neighbouring dwelling We know that in any other circumstances the Council would be happy with the extension proposed at the Appeal site. Its size, discreet location, bulk, mass and floor area are more than acceptable. It is screened from the neighbouring property by a high close boarded boundary fence and only a double pitched glazed roof is visible. The Conservatory building sits neatly into a corner at the rear of the existing building and is very much less intrusive as apart from the low plinth built of brickwork the remaining new elevations and roof are glass which creates much less impact than a solid building. In most locations the building would comply with permitted development rights and would not even require a planning application. This could well be the case at the Appeal site. As noted earlier the only real issue is whether or not the modest Appeal extension falls within the Councils Guidelines for domestic extensions in their area of Green Belt controlled land. It is very easy to identify the floor area of the proposed extension which is helpfully dimensioned on the application drawings as being 3.3 metres wide by 5.23 metres long. The area of the proposed extension is 17.2m2. The satellite view clearly shows the roof outline of current base semi detached properties and the existing subsequent alterations are shown by the different roof tile colours. The larger two storey extension to the neighbouring property shows the roof in a slightly different colour but the colour is nearer to that on the older main block which reflects the earlier date for its construction around 40 to 50 years ago. It is interesting to note that the cruciform shape of the extension is not reflected in the site plan which accompanied the application which helps confirm the plan is not accurate. It is also worth noting that the site boundary and dwelling footprints on the same land registry plan use the outline of the earlier footprints shown on the 1871 to 1938 ordnance plans and as already mentioned they are not up to date with the foot prints for the base dwelling seen on site today. UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

32 Google satellite image - neighbouring dwelling (left) + Grove Cottage (right). UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

33 This is the difficulty, which relates to this particular application / Appeal. What is the correct legal baseline floor area for the original dwelling on site on 1st July The answer is, nobody knows for sure in this particular case. Option No: 1 The Council have determined from old ordnance survey plans a floor area of 63m2 to be used as the base floor area when determining this application. They have then determined that adding the Appeal proposal to the total area on site would give a total floor area of 109m2 which represents an increase over the original total gross floor area of 175%. By our calculations using the Councils figures the actual amount would be 173% representing 23% more than the 150% confirmed in this Councils Policy document. Option No: 2 If at the baseline date the building was a two storey cottage which is more likely with the footprint shown on the Ordnance Survey plans the base floor area using the Councils figures would be 126m2. Clearly this would be the same footprint and no doubt a similar pitched roof, but with the additional height of one extra storey. This would have had no impact of any consequence on the Green Belt over and above a single storey option. Using this baseline figure and the Councils additional 46m2 the additions which we assume relates to the 1996 previous planning approval would give a figure of 172 m2 and an increased amount of 136% still leaving 14% available allowance. If the conservatory floor area of 17.2 m2 was added to that a new total area of m2 would result. This would equate to exactly 150% and will fall within the Councils guidance figure. Option No: 3 If the bungalow had existed at the baseline date in 1948 the baseline floor area would be around 98m2. Again using the Councils 46 m2 additions figure, without the extension this would give a total of 144 m2. This would equate to a figure of around 146%. If the conservatory was added and UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

34 these figures are correct the new total area would be 161. m2. This would equate to a percentage increase of 164% although one could argue that the glazed conservatory would not have as much impact as a solid building. 7.7 We feel a good way forward with this particular site, because nobody can be sure of the baseline area, it should then perhaps be considered on its merits. If that is the case, by all other tests the Council agree with the Appellant that the proposed new modest conservatory would be perfectly acceptable No party up until this Appeal has raised the issue of permitted development rights which still apply in Green Belt Areas, providing they have not been previously removed. Currently we are unaware whether they still apply to this property or if they were removed by condition under the 1996 planning approval. If they have not been removed the Conservatory extension would comply with permitted development right requirements and the Conservatory could be added without the need for planning consent. All of these points confirm that the Conservatory extension is not harmful to the Green Belt and because of the uncertainty of the base area would not set a precedent or cause any other issues. We believe the original dwellings built in the 1830 s were not replaced until the late 1940 s. I have previously worked on some projects where some new buildings and some extensions were undertaken after the Second World War in the late 1940 s and there are no records of the new planning consent recorded on the Councils Records. I live in a house built in 1937 that was hugely extended in 1948 /49 and no record of the extension exists on the Councils Records, but we know from speaking to the family that added the extension it was genuinely done at that time following the correct procedure. Clearly it is all a little confused and we cannot really rely on the Ordnance Survey plans, which in many instances can take some years to be updated. UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

35 The Appeal We would ask the Inspector to review the evidence, look at the situation on site and put the proposed extension to the ultimate test and determine whether or not the visual amenity of the Green Belt would be injured by the Development Proposals or whether the proposals would be visually detrimental by reason of siting, materials or design as noted in PPG2. This document also says Green Belt is intended to assist the Council in safeguarding the Countryside from encroachment. Again we would ask the Inspector to consider if the proposed extension would be considered as encroachment when assessed within its setting, bearing in mind the ground where it would be sited is currently a paved terrace. We believe in this instance the proposed extension subject to this Appeal is not harmful and this view is shared by the Council. It is then unfair to determine the matter in our opinion based on poorly defined base information for what was the base original building when the current planning system was introduced in As a result we would ask the Inspector to take a reasoned and balanced view and to support the Appeal and grant consent in this case. UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

36 Appendix - A OS maps UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

37 OSmap - NTS UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

38 OSmap -NTS UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

39 OSmap -NTS UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

40 OSmap -NTS UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

41 OSmap -NTS UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

42 OSmap -NTS UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA

43 OSmap -NTS UK PLANNING APPEALS LTD PA