Appeal Decision - Lapworth Architects

1 Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 November 2011 by N P Freeman BA(Hons) Dip TP MRTPI DMS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 4 November 2011 Appeal Ref: APP/Y9507/D/11/2160448 The Acorns, Wyck Lane, East Worldham, Alton, Hants, GU34 3AW 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 Chris Pretty against the Decision of South Downs National Park Authority (made by East Hampshire District Council on their behalf). The application Ref. No. SDNP/38099/003 dated 8 March 2011, was refused by notice dated 23 June 2011.

2 The development proposed is an annexe accommodation extension and a sun room extension. Summary of Decision : The Appeal is allowed in part and is dismissed in part, as set out below in the Formal Decision . Main Issues 1. These are the impact on the setting of Old House Farm (Farmhouse), the adjacent Grade II Listed Building, and the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the same. Reasons 2. It is evident that neither the Council nor any other party raises objection to the glazed sun room addition on the south-western side of the property. I consider this would be a modest and attractive addition which would cause no harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers or the setting of Old House Farm.

3 Consequently, on the basis that this is severable from the other proposed addition, I will grant planning permission for this in any event. 3. Turning to the proposed annexe addition this would have a substantial footprint of about by and would project a considerable distance from the existing house coming to within only just over 2m of the boundary with Old House Farm. The ground falls in a northerly direction towards this neighbouring property and the extension would be constructed on raised ground, rather than being cut into the bank. 4. I am required by s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 to pay special regard to the desirability of preserving the setting of Old House Farm.

4 This test is reflected in saved Policy HE12 of East Hampshire District Local Plan: Second Review (LP). The thrust of this test is expanded upon in Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 5: Planning for the Historic Environment. In particular Policy of PPS 5 makes it clear that when the setting of a heritage asset would not be preserved this needs to be weighed against any wider benefits of permitting the development. The greater the Appeal Decision : APP/Y9507/D/11/2160448 2 negative impact on the significance of the asset, the greater the benefits that will be needed to justify approval. 5. The Council claim that The Acorns and the neighbouring two modern houses to the south (Bowers Barn and Chadwicks Croft) were constructed as a group with good spaces around them so as to maintain the spacious setting of Old House Farm.

5 I have no reason to dispute this and the present plan form of these houses suggests this is the case. The annexe extension would fill up much of the space between the existing house and the common boundary with Old House Farm reducing the openness around the property that presently prevails. 6. I have noted that the ridge line of the extension would run roughly in line with the boundary, with the eaves being closest to the boundary. The new ridge would be only about 1m higher than that of the existing house wing to which it would be attached and well below the main ridge of The Acorns. Nevertheless, the presence of this significant and bulky addition close to the boundary with Old House Farm on partially built-up ground would in my opinion be dominating and harmful to the setting of the listed building.

6 There would be a substantial erosion of space between the buildings which is presently beneficial to the character and setting of Old House Farm. 7. I have considered whether planting on the boundary would overcome the harm to the setting but this would be in a hollow and would take a number of years to mature. Moreover, although it could ultimately assist in softening the impact on Old House Farm, there is no guarantee that it would remain in perpetuity. 8. I therefore conclude on the first issue that the annexe extension would fail to preserve the setting of Old House Farm and this would be at odds with the statutory test and the requirements of Policy HE12 of the LP.

7 9. In terms of the second issue, I was able to assess the proposed development from the garden of Old House Farm. I noted that this property has two kitchen windows facing towards the area on which the extension would be built. There is a pair of glazed doors and high level window which also provide light to this room but the majority of daylight and sunlight is obtained via these south facing windows. Given the separation distance of about 11m from the windows to the closest part of the proposed extension and the relative levels, I do not consider that there would be any significant loss of light. However, the presence of the extension close to the boundary would be likely to introduce a feature which would cause some harm to the outlook from these windows.

8 10. As regards the impact on the garden of Old House Farm, this is sizeable and the closest part is a drive to the garage rather than any usable amenity space. There would be some possibility of overlooking of the garden from the patio doors and margin panes in the north-west elevation of the extension but this would not be at close quarters and it is possible to see into the neighbours garden from this position in the garden of The Acorns at present. Hence, I do not find this to be a sound basis for opposition. 11. My conclusion on the second issue is that the living conditions of the occupiers of Old House Farm would not be greatly affected but there would be some material harm to their outlook from within the kitchen.

9 This would be contrary to criterion (d) of saved Policy GS2 of the LP. Appeal Decision : APP/Y9507/D/11/2160448 3 12. Bringing these findings together. I conclude that the harm to the setting of Old House Farm and, to a lesser degree the living conditions of the occupiers of the same, is such that permission should not be granted. I have considered the desire of the appellant to provide an annexe but I do not find that this personal circumstance or the benefit to him and his family is sufficient to outweigh the harm I have identified. Applying the test from Policy of PPS5 this benefit does not justify approval. It may be that an alternative, smaller annexe extension, possibly cut into the ground or including some of the existing space within the sizeable main house, may find favour but that is a matter for the appellant and the Council to consider.

10 Overall Conclusions 13. In the light of the above I intend to issue a split Decision , allowing the Appeal and granting planning permission for the sunroom extension but dismissing the Appeal for the annexe extension. As far as conditions go, apart from one covering the standard time period for implementation, I consider the only other necessary condition is that detailing the approved plans. Formal Decision 14. The Appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the annexe accommodation extension. The Appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to sunroom extension and planning permission is granted for this in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref. No. SDNP/38009/003, dated 8 March 2011 in so far as it is relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this Decision .