Appeal Decision - isa.chiltern.gov.uk Decisions.pdfThe appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Andrew and Penny...

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 September 2017

by Chris Forrett BSc(Hons) DipTP MRTPI

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

Decision date: 14th November 2017.

Appeal Ref: APP/X0415/W/17/3177550

Whitecroft, Hawridge Vale, Hawridge, Chesham, Buckinghamshire HP5 2UG

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 Andrew and Penny Jordan against the decision of

Chiltern District Council.

The application Ref CH/2016/2079/FA, dated 9 November 2016, was refused by notice

dated 22 February 2017.

The development proposed is the replacement of a dwelling and outbuildings with a new

dwelling and garage.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Main Issues

2. The main issues are:

(i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt;

(ii) the effect on the openness of the Green Belt;

(iii) the effect on the character and appearance of the area including the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB); and

(iv) if the proposal would be inappropriate development, 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

Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt

3. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) at paragraph 89 sets

out the categories of development which may be regarded as not inappropriate in the Green Belt. New buildings within the Green Belt are inappropriate unless, amongst other things, they would constitute the replacement of a

building, providing that the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one its replaces or that it constitutes the partial or complete re-

development of previously developed sites (excluding temporary buildings)


Appeal Decision APP/X0415/W/17/3177550

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt, and

the purpose of including land within it, than the existing development1.

4. In relation to the fourth bullet point, the proposal would clearly be the same

use as the existing, so therefore the key consideration for this exemption is whether the proposed building is materially larger than the existing building.

5. My attention has been drawn to a recent appeal decision2 which referred to the

judgement in Tandridge DC v SSCLG & Syrett [2015] EWHC 2503 where it was held that notwithstanding the precise wording of bullet point four of the

Framework the baseline for the size of the existing development can apply to a group of buildings.

6. The current appeal proposal involves the demolition of a number of domestic

outbuildings. From my site visit they are domestic in scale and are within the same planning unit as the existing dwelling. To that extent, the principles of

the above case apply.

7. Both the Appellant and the Council have provided figures for the size of the existing and proposed buildings, with the key difference in conclusions being

whether the lower ground floor of the proposed dwelling should be included within the calculations.

8. In that respect, the lower ground floor would clearly form part of the proposed dwelling and would be part of the resultant building on the site. Therefore this part of the proposed building must be taken into account when assessing

whether the building is materially larger than the ones it replaces.

9. Taking the above into account, the proposed development would have a

significant increase in both floorspace and volume when compared to the existing development even when the existing outbuildings are taken into account. Therefore, I consider that the development would be materially larger

than the existing development and consequently the exception outlined in bullet point four does not apply.

10. Turning to bullet point six, the site is not located within a built up area and is currently a domestic dwelling and associated curtilage. Therefore the site is previously developed land. In order to determine whether the proposal would

be inappropriate development it is therefore necessary to consider whether or not the proposal would have a greater impact on openness than the existing

development.

Effect on the openness of the Green Belt

11. Paragraph 79 of the Framework outlines a fundamental aim of Green Belt

policy which is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their

permanence.

12. All of the outbuildings on site are low level buildings, and have a limited impact

on the openness of the Green Belt. The existing dwelling is also low level design, but is cut into the land at the rear, with a raised patio area to the front.

1 Fourth and sixth bullet point of paragraph 89 of the Framework 2 APP/X0415/W/16/3151947




13. I have already concluded that the size of the proposed dwelling (and garage)

would be greater in floorspace and volume than the existing development. However, the size of the development is only one factor in assessing the overall

impact to the openness of the Green Belt.

14. Another factor in considering openness is the absence of built form. In this case, a large part of the proposed development would be located below the

existing ground level. The effect of this is that the overall impact of the development on openness is somewhat reduced. I also acknowledge that the

highest part of the new dwelling would be lower than the existing.

15. Notwithstanding that, the proposed dwelling would be greater in width than the existing dwelling and would have a forward projecting element. To my mind, it

is these factors which lead me to consider that, in combination with the increased size of the dwelling, that the proposal would have a greater bulk and

impact than the existing development and would adversely affect the openness of the Green Belt. Whilst the degree of harm is not significant, the development does nevertheless have some harm to the openness of the Green

Belt.

16. In coming to that view, I accept that the site has limited public visibility and

there is further tree and landscaping planting proposed along with a screening bund. However, these factors do not overcome the loss of openness.

17. In respect of the development plan policies which the Council have referred to,

saved Policies GB2 and GB7 of the Chiltern District Local Plan 1997 (LP) are broadly consistent with the Framework. However, I acknowledge that some

elements do not reflect the exact provisions of paragraph 89 of the Framework. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph 215 of the Framework, I cannot give full weight to these policies, although they still remain significant material

planning considerations.

18. For the above reasons, the development would lead to a loss of Green Belt

openness and would impact on the Green Belt purpose of safeguarding the countryside. As a consequence, the development would be inappropriate development as the exemptions outlined in the sixth bullet point of paragraph

89 of the Framework does not apply. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the Framework and Policies GB2 and GB7 of the LP.

Character and appearance

19. The site is located in an attractive rural location where there is a limited amount of development. From my site visit, I saw that the existing buildings in

the area are generally of a traditional design and utilise a traditional palette of materials. The existing buildings on site are low key in scale. The quality and

character of the landscape justifies its inclusion within the Chilterns AONB.

20. The Chilterns Building Design Guide (CBDG) sets out that new development

should demonstrate adherence to the basic principle of being in harmony with their setting. However, this does not mean that there is no place for contemporary architecture. There is also a checklist which indicates that

excessive earthworks and flat roofs should be avoided, that properties should wherever possible incorporate chimneys, and should have a greater proportion

of solid wall to glazing. Policy CS22 of the CS sets out the principles of




development in the AONB and also stating that development proposals must be

in accordance with the CBDG.

21. Whilst the checklist in the CBDG should not be seen as an absolute criteria of

what a development should accord with, it is nevertheless a useful tool to judge the overall impact of a development in the AONB.

22. I am also mindful of Paragraph 115 of the Framework which outlines that great

weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in

relation to landscape and scenic beauty.

23. In relation to the extent of earthworks required, it is noted that the proposal would remove the artificial plinth that has been created where the existing

dwelling and patio area is. However, it would also involve the removal of significant amounts of earth in the existing slope to accommodate the ground

floor of the new dwelling, parking area and circulation space and an additional mound to the property frontage.

24. Given that the existing buildings in the area are generally of a traditional

design and form with pitched roofs, the proposed flat roof design of the dwelling would be at odds with the prevailing character and development in the

area.

25. To my mind, it is these factors which lead me to the view that the development would not conserve or enhance the special landscape character and

distinctiveness of the AONB. It would also lead to harm to views across the AONB. In coming to that view I acknowledge that the dwelling would be set

against the back drop of land rising to the northeast and has limited views from Hawridge Vale.

26. In respect of the lack of a chimney, I do not find this to be an essential

element to the scheme particularly given the contemporary design of the dwelling. In relation to the amount of glazing proposed, the front elevation

would have a larger element of glazing than one would expect on a traditionally designed property. However, the level of glazing would amount to around 37% of the total elevation. Therefore the level of brickwork would still be in a

greater proportion to the amount of glazing.

27. I have also had regard to the Landscape and Visual Appraisal submitted with

the application. It is noted that this outlines that the development would have a similar footprint to the existing development and would remove a number of unsightly outbuildings. It also notes that the additional tree screening would

also have a positive effect on the landscape and I have no reason to disagree with that view.

28. However, whilst the removal of the existing outbuildings and new tree planting would be a positive element to the scheme,these factors do not outweigh the

harm I have already found.

29. My attention has been drawn to two other planning permissions3 nearby. Whilst these sites are also within the Chilterns AONB, they are located in a

different Local Planning Authority’s administrative area where different

3 4/00485/14/FUL & 4/00205/12/FUL




development plan policies apply. Moreover, each proposal must be determined

on its individual merits.

30. For the above reasons, I conclude that the development would give rise to

harm to the rural character of the area and views across the AONB in conflict with Policies GC1 and LSQ1 of the LP, and Policies CS20 and CS22 of the Core Strategy for Chiltern District 2011(CS) which amongst other things seek to

protect the character and appearance of the area and conserve or enhance the special landscape character and distinctiveness of the AONB. The proposal

would also be at odds with the Framework which has similar underlying aims.

Other matters

31. The Appellant has outlined that the dwelling is of a good design and would

have an improved environmental performance when compared to the existing dwelling (including a biomass boiler, ground source heat pump and rainwater

harvesting). From the evidence before me, I have no reason to disagree with that view and these elements of the development must be considered favourably. I have also had regard to the accessibility requirements of the

Appellants family. These matters also weigh in favour of the proposed development.

Green Belt balance

32. Paragraph 87 of the Framework sets out the general presumption against inappropriate development within the Green Belt. It states that such

development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 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.

33. I have concluded that the proposal would be inappropriate development and

would have an adverse effect on openness. It would therefore, by definition, be harmful to the Green Belt. I have also concluded that the development

would not conserve or enhance the special landscape character and distinctiveness of the AONB.

34. The Appellant has put forward that an increase in openness in the Green Belt, a

positive impact on the Chilterns AONB, good design, improved environmental performance of the new dwelling and the personal circumstances of the

Appellant amount to matters which would outweigh any harm to the Green Belt and would establish very special circumstances.

35. In respect of the openness of the Green Belt and the impact on the Chilterns

AONB, these are matters where I have found harm and therefore these factors weight against the proposed development. However, the other three factors

weigh in favour of the proposal.

36. In considering the substantial weight given to the Green Belt, to my mind, the

benefits outlined above do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Therefore, I find that the other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified. Consequently, the very special

circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist and the development would conflict with the Framework and Policies GB2 and GB7 of

the LP.




Conclusion

37. Taking all matters into consideration, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.

Chris Forrett

INSPECTOR



Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 October 2017

by Chris Preston BA(Hons) BPl MRTPI


Decision date: 15 November 2017

Appeal Ref: APP/X0415/X/17/3174735

Trenear, 29 The Lagger, Chalfont St Giles, Buckinghamshire HP8 4DH

The appeal is made under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as

amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 against a refusal to grant a

certificate of lawful use or development (LDC).

The appeal is made by Mr Stephen Newell against the decision of Chiltern District

Council.

The application Ref CH/2016/2400/SA, dated 22 December 2016, was refused by notice

dated 10 February 2017.

The application was made under section 192(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning

Act 1990 as amended.

The use for which a certificate of lawful use or development is sought is described on

the application form as: Stationing of a temporary mobile home within the residential

curtilage of a dwelling, for purposes ancillary to the main use of the host dwellinghouse.

Decision


Preliminary Matter

2. The Council has noted that the appellant has produced sworn affidavits and revised lifting calculations that were not provided prior to the point at which it

made its decision. Whilst that may be the case, the Council has had the opportunity to comment on those documents as part of the appeal process and

I am satisfied that no prejudice will arise as a result of my decision to take that information into account when reaching my decision.

Main Issue

3. A Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) application is not an application for planning permission. Its purpose is to enable owners and others to ascertain

whether specific operations or activities would be lawful. As such, the planning merits of the development are not relevant to my decision which is based upon

relevant judicial authority and the facts of the case. The main issue when determining an appeal relating to an LDC is whether the Council’s decision to refuse the application was well-founded.

Reasons

4. The application sought confirmation that it would be lawful to site a mobile

home within the rear garden of Trenear to be used for purposes ancillary to the use of the main dwelling. The Council refused to grant an LDC for two reasons; that the proposal would not fall within the definition of a caravan but would


Appeal Decision APP/X0415/X/17/3174735


constitute a building operation requiring planning permission and secondly that

the use of the unit would result in the creation of a separate dwellinghouse, thereby amounting to a material change of use in the land. I shall address

both matters in turn.

Whether the Proposal Would Involve a Building Operation

5. The supporting statement provided from iHus Projects Ltd confirms that the

‘mobile home will be constructed on site in compliance with the 1960 Act Section 29(1)…..on preformed pad piers’. That is a reference to the Caravan

Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (the CSCDA) which provides the statutory definition of a caravan. Section 29(1) of the CSCDA states:

“Caravan” means any structure designed or adapted for human habitation

which is capable of being moved from one place to another (whether by being towed, or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer) and any motor

vehicle so designed or adapted, but does not include:

(a) any railway rolling stock, which is, for the time being, on rails forming part of a railway system or

(b) any tent.

6. The definition provided within the CSCDA is supplemented by the Caravan Sites

Act (1968) (the CSA). In relation to twin-unit caravans, sub-section 13(1) of the CSA states that:

A structure designed or adapted for human habitation which:

(a) Is comprised of not more than two sections separately constructed and designed to be assembled on a site by means of bolts, clamps or other

devices; and

(b) Is, when assembled, physically capable of being moved by road from one place to another (whether by being towed or by being transported on a

motor vehicle or trailer),

Shall not be treated as not being (or as not having been) a caravan within the

meaning of Part I of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 by reason only that it cannot lawfully be so moved on a highway when assembled.

7. Subsection 13(2) of the CSCDA provides size limits within which a structure

must fall to be considered as a caravan. There is no dispute in this case that the structure would fall within those limits. The appellant also maintains that

the structure would be capable of being lifted by crane onto the back of a lorry and moved, once constructed. Structural calculations to support that claim have been submitted and no contrary evidence in that regard has been

provided by the Council. Consequently, I have no particular reason to doubt the appellant’s claim that the structure would be capable of being transported,

once erected.

8. However, the fact that a structure could be transported is not the only factor to

consider in determining whether it amounts to a caravan. Having regard to the definitions at sections 29(1) of the CSCDA and section 13(1) of the CSA there is a clear distinction between a caravan and a twin unit caravan. Section 29(1)

refers to ‘any structure designed or adapted for human habitation’ whereas section 13(1) defines a twin unit caravan as a structure designed or adapted




for human habitation which is composed of not more than two sections

separately constructed.

9. It is implicit that there is an element of pre-fabrication within the definitions. A

twin unit must be composed of not more than two separate sections to the extent that those sections need only be assembled, as opposed to constructed, on site. In this case the appellant acknowledges that the structure would be

‘constructed’ on site, as opposed to being brought to the site. Paragraph 21 of his appeal statement notes that, ‘In this case, the two separate parts of the

proposed mobile home will be constructed as individual sections on site, but then bolted together as the final act of assembly’. That is presumably a reference to the definition of a twin unit caravan at s13(1)(a) of the CSA.

10. However, from the information before me it is extremely unclear what work would be required to erect or assemble the structure on site. The drawings

provided do not show any technical or constructional details to give any indication in that regard. No details of how the structure would be bolted together are provided. Neither can I see any clear reference to two individual

sections in the structural calculations relating to lifting the unit1. Thus, it is not clear how many individual parts it would be comprised of or how those

individual components would be joined together.

11. Moreover, little information is provided on the materials that would be used in construction. The structural calculations provided refer to the use of external

‘cedral panels’ fixed to stud walling with insulation behind plasterboard. The floor is stated to comprise boards, joists, insulation and “under” board and the

roof would comprise a membrane, insulation, ply deck, joists and a ceiling. All of those features would apply to a traditional ‘building’. Reference to stud walling and plasterboard gives the impression of a traditional building

technique where the final assembly would not simply be a case of bolting together two sections. The use of plasterboard would, presumably, require an

internal skim and finish after any individual components had been attached to one another.

12. Having considered all of the information before me it is not clear how the

structure would be constructed or if it would have two or more parts. Consequently, I am not satisfied that the information is sufficiently clear to

demonstrate that the unit would fall within the definitions of a caravan as set out within the CSCDA and CSA. I have noted the appeal referred to by the appellant in relation to a case where a park home was delivered to a site in

many different sections and subsequently erected on site2. In that case, the Inspector saw no requirement within the definition of s13(1) of the CSA for the

two sections to be constructed off site. In his view, all that mattered was that the act of joining the two sections together should be the final act of assembly.

13. That decision was clearly made on the facts of the specific case and I do have some reservations about the wider applicability of those conclusions. It appears to me that a key element in the consideration of whether something is

a caravan or a building operation will be the degree of work that is required on site. The bolting together of two pre-fabricated sections is unlikely to involve a

building operation and would fall within the definition of a twin unit caravan within s13(1) of the CSA. Where construction work would take place on site,

1 Appendix E of the Appellant’s statement 2 Appeal reference APP/N1025/C/01/1074589




as opposed to assembly, the issue of whether building operations will have

taken place will be a matter of fact and degree.

14. In the appeal referred to by the appellant the Inspector had been provided with

evidence and photographs showing the assembly of two separate sections, each split at the base and ridge and was clearly satisfied that those sections were assembled as two distinct halves and subsequently joined together as a

final act of assembly. No such detail is before me in this case and, as set out above, I find that the information is not sufficiently clear to enable a full

understanding of precisely what would be required to construct the structure on site.

15. Consequently the appellant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that the unit

would fall within the definition of a caravan, as set out within the CSCDA and CSA. I am unable to conclude, on the evidence before me, whether the

proposal would involve the siting of a caravan or the erection of a building.

16. A building is defined by s336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the Act) as including any structure or erection and any part of a building, but not

plant or machinery comprised within a building. Case law has determined three primary factors were identified as decisive of what was a building (a) that

it was of a size to be constructed on site, as opposed to being brought on to the site, (b) permanence, (c) physical attachment. No one factor is decisive.

17. The appellant acknowledges that the structure would be constructed on site as

opposed to being brought to the site. Precisely what would be involved in that process is unclear but the reference to ‘construction on site’ and the use of

traditional building methods give an indication that it would not be a simple question of bolting a pre-fabricated structure together.

18. The piers to support the structure would need to be constructed and would be

located within a specific part of the garden, as would the service connections. Whilst disconnecting the services may be a straightforward task, the ability to

move the structure would be less easy due to the need for a specific support system. In this case, the arrangements would indicate that the unit (or building as the case may be) is not intended to be moved around the garden

but that it would have a degree of permanence on a particular spot. The evidence suggests that the structure would sit on the piers rather than being

physically attached to them. However, having regard to all three factors, and taking account of the information provided regarding the method of construction, the proposal in question could well amount to a building

operation.

19. When making an application for a certificate of lawfulness the onus rests with

an appellant to demonstrate his case. The Planning Practice Guidance identifies that, in the case of applications for proposed development, an

applicant needs to describe the proposal with sufficient clarity and precision to enable a local planning authority to understand exactly what is involved3. For the reasons given I am not satisfied that the information provided is sufficiently

clear to enable me to conclude that the structure would fall within the definition of a caravan. Conversely, that evidence indicates that what is proposed may,

in fact, amount to a building operation.

3 Reference ID: 17c-006-20140306




The Use of the Structure

20. The structure would contain all of the facilities required for day to day living. However, that, of itself, does not dictate that the use would amount to the

creation of separate dwellinghouse and an independent unit of occupation. I understand that the occupant would be a family member related to those living in the adjacent house; that meals would regularly be taken in the existing

dwellinghouse; that all laundry would be undertaken in the existing house; that services would run to the unit from the existing house; that no separate postal

address would be created; and that the access and garden spaces would be shared.

21. In those circumstances I am satisfied that the unit would, in effect, provide for

an extension to the primary living space of the existing dwelling and would not involve the creation of an independent unit of occupation. As noted by the

appellant, the certificate is sought under section 192 of the Act for a proposed use on that basis. If the circumstances subsequently altered it could be that a separate unit would be created but I must determine the appeal on the basis of

how the appellant suggests that the structure would be used. On that basis I am satisfied that no material change of use would occur.

22. However, for the reasons given above, I am not satisfied that the appellant has demonstrated that the unit would fall within the definition of a caravan. If the structure amounted to a building operation it would not benefit from permitted

development rights granted under Class E, Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015.

Whilst no new planning unit would be created, the structure would provide an extension to the ‘primary’ living accommodation of the associated dwelling, as opposed to being for a use that is ‘incidental to the enjoyment’ of the

dwellinghouse, such as a shed, garage or summerhouse. As such, planning permission would be required for the building and it would not be lawful in the

absence of such permission.

Conclusion

23. For the reasons set out the appellant has not demonstrated with sufficient

precision that the proposed structure would fall within the definition of a caravan. On the balance of the evidence before me what is proposed may well

amount to a building operation for which planning permission would be required. The PPG identifies that: Without sufficient or precise information, a local planning authority may be justified in refusing a certificate. This does not

preclude another application being submitted later on, if more information can be produced.

24. Given the significant ambiguity regarding the means of construction I conclude that the Council’s refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development in

respect of the stationing of a temporary mobile home within the residential curtilage of a dwelling, for purposes ancillary to the main use of the host dwellinghouse was well-founded and that the appeal should fail. I will exercise

accordingly the powers transferred to me in section 195(3) of the 1990 Act as amended.

Chris Preston

INSPECTOR




by H Baugh-Jones BA(Hons) DipLA MA CMLI



Appeal Ref: APP/X0415/D/17/3185149

Holderness House, Penn Road, Knotty Green, Buckinghamshire HP9 2LW



The appeal is made by Mr Peter Manning against the decision of Chiltern District

Council.

The application Ref CH/2017/0947/FA, dated 19 April 2017, was refused by notice dated

3 July 2017.

The development proposed is extension to existing car port.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for extension to existing car port at Holderness House, Penn Road, Knotty Green,

Buckinghamshire HP9 2LW in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref CH/2017/0947/FA, dated 19 April 2017, 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: Proposed Plan and Elevations Drawing No 2351 PL 100 Revision A.

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.

Main Issue

2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the character and

appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area.

Reasons

3. The area around the appeal site is characterised by detached dwellings sitting

within large plots, many of which are fronted by walls or fences and mature trees. This creates a spacious and verdant residential scene. The proposed

building would extend the existing garage and car port to create an ‘L’ Shaped building wrapping around the front of the site. The property is well-screened by mature evergreen and deciduous trees.

4. I agree with the Council that the proposal would form a significant front projection extending forward from the main house. However, the house is of

very substantial proportions and the car port would not be so large that it


Appeal Decision APP/X0415/D/17/3185149


would unbalance the relationship between the ancillary buildings in relation to

the house. It would also be of modest height in comparison to the existing garage and car port, which would assist in minimising its overall mass. In this

respect, the proposal would accord with policy H20 of the Chiltern District Local Plan (1997 consolidated in 2007 and 2011) (LP), which requires ancillary residential buildings to be modest in size and subordinate to the existing

dwelling house. It would also accord with LP policy GC1, which amongst other things, says that development should be in scale with its surroundings.

5. The proposed materials would match those of the existing garage and car port and broadly reflect the character of the main house thereby sitting comfortably with these existing buildings. In this respect the proposal would also therefore

accord with this requirement of LP policy GC1 and with the similar requirement of LP policy H15.

6. The car port would be set back behind the front property boundary, which itself lies behind a substantial grass verge. Given the building’s proposed height and the screening afforded by existing vegetation along the front boundary, the car

port would not be obtrusive in views along Penn Road. I note the Council’s argument that the vegetation could be removed. However, given the privacy it

provides for the appellant, I am not persuaded that there is any obvious reason for its removal. In any case, the Council has the power to give the trees statutory protection. This argument therefore carries little weight and the

proposal would not result in any material visual harm to the area’s appearance. Thus, there would be no conflict with LP policy H13 that seeks to prevent

adverse effects on the street scene or the character and appearance of the locality or with the similar aims of LP policy H15.

7. There are a number of properties nearby that have substantial ancillary

buildings close the street and some of these are more open to view than would be the case with the appeal scheme. I therefore consider this arrangement to

be a defining physical characteristic of the Penn Road street scene. As such, the proposed car port would not be at odds with the prevailing pattern of development in the locality. The proposal would therefore accord with policy

CS20 of the Core Strategy for Chiltern District (2011) that seeks a high quality of design which reflects and respects the character of the surrounding area and

local distinctiveness. For this reason in addition to those already given, it would also reflect the advice in the Council’s Residential Extensions and Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document (2013).

Conditions

8. I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings as this provides

certainty. A condition is also imposed in relation to materials in order to ensure the appearance of the development is satisfactory.

Conclusion

9. For the above reasons and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal succeeds.

Hayden Baugh-Jones

Inspector








Milesville, Village Road, Whelpley Hill HP5 3RN



The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs McCarthy against the decision of Chiltern District

Council.

The application Ref CH/2017/1270/FA, dated 4 July 2017, was refused by notice dated

25 August 2017.

The development proposed is detached double garage and carport with first floor

habitable accommodation.

Decision


Procedural Matter

2. The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the appeal form as it provides the most accurate description of the proposal and is

also the one used in the Council’s decision notice.

Main Issues

3. The main issues in this appeal are (i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development

plan policies; (ii) whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness including loss of openness and harm to the local landscape would be clearly outweighed

by other considerations; and (iii) if so, would this amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

Reasons

Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt

4. The proposed building would be sited in the north-western corner of the

grounds around the appellant’s property, which comprises a detached house occupying a corner plot. The proposed building would comprise a double garage with a car port to the side and would have a hobby room above with three

pitched roofed dormer windows facing to the south-east.

5. Policy GB2 of the Chiltern District Local Plan (1997 consolidated in 2007 and

2011) (LP) lists exceptions whereby development is not considered to be inappropriate in the Green Belt. These include the limited extension or




alteration of a building in accordance with other development plan policies

including policy GB15.

6. LP Policy GB15 permits the construction or extension of non-habitable ancillary

buildings within domestic curtilages provided they are small and subordinate in scale to the original building. Given that the proposal in part comprises habitable accommodation at first floor level, I consider it would not accord with

LP policy GB15 or by extension GB2.

7. However, the Framework is somewhat less restrictive and says that the

construction of new buildings is inappropriate in the Green Belt unless in accordance with specific exceptions. The third bullet point in paragraph 89 of the Framework states that the one of the exceptions 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. I consider the

physical relationship between the main house and the proposed building would be such that it would be an extension to the main house.

8. The main house is of substantial proportions and occupies a considerable

amount of its overall plot. In comparison, the proposed building would be comparatively modest and in my view, it falls well within the realm of being a

subordinate extension for the purposes of the third bullet point of Framework paragraph 89. Accordingly, I consider that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and thus, it would not conflict with

Framework paragraph 89.

Landscape

9. The boundaries of the site comprise hedgerows and trees of varying heights. Notably, most of the north-eastern boundary is formed by a low hedgerow above which the proposed building would be in plain view and appear in close

proximity to the main house.

10. The Council previously granted permission for a building in a similar location

but which comprised an open structured car port and plain roof design. I do not have full details of what led the Council to make its decision on that scheme but based on the evidence before me, it is apparent that was a very different

development to the one now proposed.

11. In the scheme before me, the building would have three dormers that would

give its roof a considerable presence, which on the evidence before me would be far greater than the previously consented scheme. As it would be in plain view over the boundary hedgerow, it would be overly assertive and visually

obtrusive. The hedgerow behind it is not of sufficient height to provide a vegetated backdrop that might reduce the overall visual effects of the building

in its setting. Indeed it would project substantially above it and stand out against the sky. It would therefore be an incongruous feature in the local

landscape.

12. Moreover, the proposed building would increase the amount of built form within the plot and given its overall visual presence in combination with its proximity

to the main house, the cumulative effect would compound the harm I have already described.

13. Accordingly, the proposal would adversely affect the character and appearance of the local landscape thereby running counter LP policy GB15, which also says




that buildings will be assessed against other non-Green Belt considerations

including their siting, design external appearance and the impact on the landscape.

14. LP policy GC1 seeks via a number of requirements, to promote high standards of design. I do not consider the clear identified harm to the character and appearance of the local landscape would accord with the broad objectives of

this policy or with policy CS20 of the Core Strategy for Chiltern District (2011) that seeks a high quality of design which reflects and respects the character of

the surrounding area and local distinctiveness. The proposal would also conflict with the Council’s Residential Extensions and Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document (2013).

Conclusion

15. The proposal would not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt

and as such, there is no need to consider openness, other considerations or to make a determination on whether any very special circumstances exist in favour of the proposal. However, there would be harm caused to the character

and appearance of the local landscape which I consider weighs sufficiently against the scheme to withhold permission.

16. For the above reasons and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal does not succeed.

Hayden Baugh-Jones

Inspector








3 Twist Niet, Hill Rise, Chalfont St Peter SL9 9BN



The appeal is made by Mrs Susan Williams against the decision of Chiltern District

Council.

The application Ref CH/2017/1364/FA, dated 19 July 2017, was refused by notice dated

11 September 2017.

The development proposed is single storey rear extension, single storey side extension;

construction of new gable roof with front and rear dormer windows; removal of front

bay windows.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for single storey rear

extension, single storey side extension; construction of new gable roof with front and rear dormer windows; removal of front bay windows at 3 Twist Niet,

Hill Rise, Chalfont St Peter SL9 9BN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref CH/2017/1364/FA, dated 19 July 2017, 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: Block Plan Drawing No H/R/001A;

Existing and Proposed Ground Floor Plans Drawing No H/R/001A; Proposed Loft and Roof Plans Drawing No H/R/002 A; Proposed Front, Rear and Side Elevations Drawing No H/R/ 003; Existing Front, Rear and

Side Elevations Drawing No H/R/004.

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) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning

(General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no

windows/dormer windows other than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be constructed on the eastern or western elevations above ground floor level.




Main Issue

2. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupiers of 36 and 38 Lower Road with regard to outlook,

overshadowing and light.

Reasons

3. The appeal property comprises a detached bungalow with a hipped roof and a

dormer within the rear roof slope. It lies on the southern side of Hill Rise. The plots of 36 and 38 Lower Road are occupied by two storey detached dwellings

located to the east with the ends of their gardens backing onto the side boundary of the appeal property. The rear elevations of these dwellings face towards the appeal site. There is a gentle fall in land levels from the area of Hill

Rise next to the appeal property and Lower Road. Accordingly, nos. 36 and 38 sit on lower land although the levels difference is not significant.

4. Policies GC3, H13 and H14 of the Chiltern District Local Plan (1997 consolidated in 2007 and 2011) (LP) all include objectives to protect the amenities of adjoining occupiers.

5. The Council raises no objections to the single-storey elements of the proposal. The change in roof form to create east facing gable ends and the increase in

the height of the roof by about 1m would substantially add to the mass of the bungalow above its ground floor. However, the main part of the building would be set back from the property boundary thus maintaining the existing distance

between it and the rear elevation of nos. 36 and 38. The east facing main gable end would sit below a shallow pitched roof that would maintain an acceptable

amount of space around the building at first floor level.

6. Moreover, the length of the rear gardens of the adjoining properties would be sufficient in my view to maintain an acceptable outlook for the occupants of

nos. 36 and 38. I accept that there could be some perception of increased enclosure for those occupants but consider it would be minimal and acceptable.

Thus, the relationship between buildings would not have an adverse effect on the outlook from nos. 36 or 38.

7. The orientation of the appeal property relative to nos. 36 and 38 is such that

the increase in built form at first floor level could only have an effect on overshadowing later in the day. For most of the day, there would be no such

effects. Given the distance between the properties, I am satisfied that the amount of direct sunlight reaching the gardens and rear rooms of the adjoining properties would not be unacceptably diminished. For similar reasons, and

given the pitch of the proposed roof and the distance between dwellings, I do not consider that there would be a marked effect on the amount of daylight

reaching the rear rooms or gardens of nos. 36 and 38.

8. Taking all of the above into account, the proposal would accord with the

objectives of LP policies GC3, H13 and H14. It would also be in general accordance with the Council’s Residential Extensions and Householder Development Supplementary Planning Document (2013).




Conditions

9. I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant drawings as this provides certainty. A condition is also imposed in relation to materials in order to ensure

the appearance of the development is satisfactory.

10. I have given consideration to the Council’s suggested condition relating to permitted development rights. In doing so, I have had regard to the National

Planning Policy Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. In this instance, I am satisfied that unacceptable overlooking of neighbouring properties could

occur with the addition of windows above ground floor level in the eastern and western elevations. I have therefore imposed a condition restricting this specific permitted development right.

Conclusion

11. For the above reasons and having had regard to all other matters raised, the

appeal succeeds.

Hayden Baugh-Jones

Inspector


Appeal Decision - isa.chiltern.gov.uk Decisions.pdfThe appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Andrew and Penny...

Documents

Transcript of Appeal Decision - isa.chiltern.gov.uk Decisions.pdfThe appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Andrew and Penny...