The proposal seeks to regularise two unauthorised works that involve the following additions:

Transcription

1 4/00605/10/FHA - REAR TERRACE. BURY MANOR, SHOTHANGER WAY, BOVINGDON, HEMEL HEMPSTEAD, HP3 0DW. APPLICANT: MR W J HUGHES. [Case Officer - Brett Leahy] [Grid Ref - TL ] SUMMARY Summary of reasons to refuse The application site is located in the Metropolitan Green Belt in Dacorum Borough Local Plan (DBLP). Within the Green Belt, planning permission will only be granted for appropriate development, in accordance with national advice contained in Department of the Environment Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 - Green Belts and DBLP Policy 4. DBLP Policy 22 allows for extensions to existing dwellings in the Green Belt. However the extension proposed would amount to a disproportionate addition over the size of the original dwellinghouses previously demolished, and would constitute inappropriate development in a Green Belt area. No very special circumstances have been advanced to show why planning permission should be granted. The proposal is therefore contrary to DBLP Policies 4 and 22 and national planning policy as set out in PPG2. BACKGROUND Description The application site is located in the Metropolitan Green Belt. It comprises a substantially large two storey dwelling in a central location set in extensive grounds located on the north side of Shothanger Way. There is a significant change in levels across the site and the land falls steeply towards Box Lane to the south. Proposal The proposal seeks to regularise two unauthorised works that involve the following additions: On the rear elevation at basement level a sunken enclosed single-storey structure with roof terrace above that leads to the breakfast room (7.8 sq ms x 3 sq ms = 23.4 sq ms). On the rear elevation at basement level a larger sunken enclosed single-storey structure with roof terrace that leads to the playroom (4.7 sq ms x 9.3 sq ms = 43,7 sq ms). Referral to Committee Bovingdon Parish Council support this application. Relevant Planning History 4/00605/07/FUL. Demolition of two detached dwellings and construction of one detached dwelling. Grant. 4/01772/07/DRC. Details of materials and slab levels. Grant. 4/00772/08/FUL. Demolition of two detached dwellings and construction of one detached dwelling (Amended Scheme). Refused. Allowed on Appeal. POLICIES

2 National policy guidance PPS1, PPG2 Circular 11/95 Dacorum Borough Local Plan Part 3 General Proposals Policies 4, 11, 13, 22 and 58 Appendices Appendices 5 and 7 REPRESENTATIONS Bovingdon Parish Council The consultation tap on Acolaid confirms 'support'. Local residents No letters received. CONSIDERATIONS Principle and Background The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt, where there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. PPG2 identifies development which is inappropriate including residential development. Limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings are not inappropriate however, provided that they do not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. In particular it notes that any new replacement dwelling should not be larger than: the dwelling which it replaces; or the original dwelling on the site plus an allowance for any extension that would have been permitted under Policy 22 i.e. within the Green Belt the resulting building (including any earlier extensions and alterations or replacement) should be less than 130% of the floor area of the original dwelling. The constructed replacement dwelling was originally approved under planning reference 4/00695/07/FUL where the Officer noted that 'the overall increase in development at this site over the original development is thus 49.5%, 19.5% greater than that permitted under Policy 22'. The Officer concluded that the 'proposal was acceptable in that there would be an overall reduction in the built form on the site, thus enhancing the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal also offers the opportunity to ensure further long term safeguards to the openness of the Green Belt through the removal of permitted development rights in respect of outbuildings and subdivision of the garden'. Following the original approval, the applicants submitted a revised scheme for a new dwelling (4/00772/08/FUL) that sought to introduce a conservatory to the new build. The Local

3 Planning Authority refused the revised scheme under Policy 22 on the grounds it amounted to a disproportionate addition over the size of the original dwelling house. The applicants took the matter to an appeal (APP/A1910/A/08/ /WF) whereby the conservatory was allowed on the grounds that it would have no adverse impact on the openness of the Metropolitan Green Belt. The applicants also contested condition 3 that sought to remove Permitted Development Rights in relation to Class A and E. In terms of the withdrawal of permitted development rights covering extensions (Class A), the Inspector concluded that 'in light national policy in PPG2 discouraging disproportionately large extensions greater control over extensions to dwellings could be considered necessary and reasonable in order to help safeguard the openness of the Green Belt from the cumulative effect of unconsidered and overlarge extensions'. Therefore, the removal of Permitted Development Rights was upheld. In conclusion therefore it is important to highlight the following two points before assessing the current proposal: 1. As noted by the previous Officer the resultant replacement dwelling has been increased from the original gross floorspace by about 49% (694 sq ms / 465 sq ms x 100 = 149%), and with the introduction of the conservatory (39 sq ms) this has been increased further (734 sq ms ( ) / 465 sq ms x 100 = 158%) by about 58%. Please note the original gross floorspace was calculated by 694 (sq ms) / 149 (%) = 465 sq ms. 2. The Inspector has removed Permitted Development Rights covering modest extensions. Please note that the figures are approximations to give an overall view of what the percentage increase could roughly be, they are by no means exact calculations. Unauthorised works Having reviewed the approved drawings under planning references 4/00695/07/FUL and 4/00772/08/FUL it would appear that the following unauthorised works have taken place to the dwelling: The introduction of a sunken enclosed single-storey structure with roof terrace above that leads to the breakfast room (7.8 sq ms x 3 sq ms = 23.4 sq ms). Please note the drawings refer to this area as 'open area under patio' however this space is enclosed by a structure that has a roof and walls, and not open to the elements. The introduction of a larger sunken enclosed single-storey structure with roof terrace that leads to the playroom (4.7 sq ms x 9.3 sq ms = 43,7 sq ms). Again please note the drawings refer to this area as 'open area under patio' however this space is enclosed by a structure that has a roof and walls, and not open to the elements. Both elements referred to above constitute development and would require formal grant of planning permission given that permitted development rights have been removed. The applicants note that the proposed works do not create habitable floorspace and therefore should not be considered as an extension to the existing property. Whilst, this floorspace in not habitable it is still usable additional floorspace created from two sunken enclosed structures. The additional floorspace created would be about 67 sq ms. Therefore, the overall increase in percentage terms would be (801 sq ms ( ) / 465 sq ms x 100 = 172%) about 72%. Also, it would appear that the existing ground levels are different to the details as approved under planning reference 4/01772/07/DRC whereby the basement is more exposed visually than what was originally approved, given that the ground level at the rear has been reduced. These do not form part of this application however, they will need to be regularised.

4 Assessment of the unauthorised works against Policy 22 Under Policy 22 criteria the following has been identified: (a) The two additions / extensions are considered to be compact and well related to the existing building in terms of design, bulk, scale and materials used. The design consists of two single-storey flat roof structures that are sunken into ground. Consequently its perceived scale and visual impact is very modest. Also, the materials used are identical to those used on the existing building. (b) The extensions are considered to be well designed having regard to the size and shape of the site and retains sufficient space around the building to protect its setting and the character of the countryside. The two extensions are very modest when compared to the existing building. Both additions are also integrated into the dwelling by forming part of the two terraces. As the dwelling is centrally sited within the plot, there is sufficient space to protect the character of the countryside. (c) The extensions are not visually intrusive on the skyline or in the open character of the surrounding countryside given that the two additions are partially sunken into the ground and the backdrop is a large 2-storey dwellinghouse. (d) The extension does not prejudice the retention of any significant trees and hedgerows. (e) However, the extension is not limited in size. Criterion (e) notes that within the Green Belt the resulting building (including any earlier extensions and alterations or replacement) should be less than 130% (30%) of the floor area of the original dwelling. The proposal clearly fails Policy 22 of criterion (e) given that the percentage increase is in the region of 172% (72%) and therefore cannot be supported in policy terms. Disproportionate and inappropriate extensions To quantify the assessment further and add greater objectively to the conclusion the Development Control Practice journal refers to an interesting case that is very relevant to the current proposal. It notes that 'permission had been granted on appeal for a replacement dwelling in the green belt. An application to extend the property within council guidelines was rejected because it was clear that the first inspector in allowing the appeal would not have removed permitted development rights if further modest extensions had been thought acceptable. The proposed floor area represented an increase of 38% over that permitted on appeal. This would not result in a replacement dwelling of similar size to the original (New Forest D.C. 14/07/97)'. The current proposal seeks to extend the property where an Inspector has upheld the removal of permitted development rights covering modest extensions, thereby recognising that additional extensions could be detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt. The proposed increase of the proposal in gross floor area from the original would be about 72%, which is clearly not of similar size to the original two properties that the new dwelling replaced. Impact on neighbours There would be no impact on surrounding neighbours given the size of the plot. RECOMMENDATION - That planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

5 The application site is located in the Metropolitan Green Belt in Dacorum Borough Local Plan (DBLP). Within the Green Belt, planning permission will only be granted for appropriate development, in accordance with national advice contained in Department of the Environment Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 - Green Belts and DBLP Policy 4. DBLP Policy 22 allows for extensions to existing dwellings in the Green Belt. However the extension proposed would amount to a disproportionate addition over the size of the original dwellinghouses previously demolished, and would constitute inappropriate development in a Green Belt area. No very special circumstances have been advanced to show why planning permission should be granted. The proposal is therefore contrary to DBLP Policies 4 and 22 and national planning policy as set out in PPG2.