Planning Statement

1.1 1.2
This planning statement is submitted by Phase 2 Planning and Development on behalf of Mr D Pell (hereafter referred to as “Applicant”) and supports the planning application for the erection of a single storey rear extension and replacement roof over conservatory.

The proposal is for a householder planning application for the erection of single storey rear extension at Heathbury House, Sawbridgeworth Road, Hatfield Heath. The description of the development proposed is:

“Erection of a single storey rear extension and replacement of the existing glass

conservatory roof with a solid roof”

1.3

The proposal follows positive pre-application advice (reference EF\2017\ENQ\00109)

received from Stephen Andrews, Planning Officer at Epping Forest District Council (EFDC), see Appendix 1.

Purpose and Structure of this Report

1.4 1.5
The purpose of this report is to draw together the key issues in the consideration of this proposal and outline how the scheme responds to the constraints of the site and the policy guidelines.

Within section 2.0 of this Statement we will describe the site and surroundings. Section 3.0 will examine the planning history of relevance. Section 4.0 describes the proposals. In section 5.0 we review relevant planning policy applicable to the proposals. In section 6.0 we explore the key planning issues of this application. Finally, a conclusion is provided in section 7.0.

Planning Application Documents

1.6

The submitted plans forming part of this application submission have been prepared by BRD

Tech Ltd and are as set out below:

Drawing title

Reference

Site Location Plan/Existing Plans & Elevations BRD/16/081/001

Proposed Floor Plans & Elevations

BRD/16/081/002

Table 1: List of submitted plans.

1.7

In addition, a number of supporting documents have been prepared in support of this

planning application which comprise the following:
1. This Planning Statement – Phase 2 Planning; and 2. Covering letter Phase 2 Planning.

Page 2

2. The Site and Surroundings

2.1 2.2 2.3
The application site, Heathbury House, Sawbridgeworth Road, Hatfield Heath (hereafter referred to as “the site” is located on the southern side of Sawbridgeworth Road within a small linear enclave of fifteen dwellings (within Epping Forest) that then continues on the northern side of the road as a further 10 dwellings (within Uttlesford). The site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt and lies to west of the more built-up area of Hatfield Heath village accessed via Sawbridgeworth Road.

The application site relates to the land edged red on the Site Location Plan submitted in support of this application and as outlined in red in figure 1 below. The site comprises an existing detached chalet style dwelling, with rooms in the roof, set within a large curtilage. The site is rectangular in shape with a large, long rear garden. The dwelling is set well back from the road frontage and is very well screened on all rear boundaries with established trees, shrubs and hedging. .

Sawbridgeworth Road is an example of a linear development of depth and is lined with a mix of substantial detached housing many of which have benefitted from substantial extensions. The application site represents the last dwelling in the row of housing with open countryside lying to the west and further the M11 and village of Sawbridgeworth.

2.4

2.5
The site contains a detached chalet bungalow with a detached garage building in a large well screened curtilage. It is contained to the east, west and south by a strong established hedge line and is framed by residential development to the east.

The site is within acceptable walking distance to the village of Hatfield Heath with footpaths along Sawbridgeworth Road providing access by foot and cycle and public transport links are available locally.

Figure 1: Aerial view of Heathbury House, Sawbridgeworth Road with its site boundaries indicatively highlighted in red.

Page 3

3. Relevant Planning History

Site History - General

3.1

The site has been the subject of a number of planning applications:



Planning application ref: EPF/0810/00 – Rear conservatory – Approved 21/07/2000; Planning application ref: EPF/1306/91– Erection of detached double garage– Refused 31/01/1992 & dismissed at Appeal 18/11/92;



Planning application ref: EPF/1299/91– Alterations and extension to existing garage and change of use to domestic games rooms – Refused 31/01/1992 & dismissed at Appeal 18/11/92;



Planning application ref: EPF/1089/90– Alterations and extension– Approved 02/11/1990;

Planning application ref: EPF/0378/86– Linked detached double garage with play room over – Approved 02/04/1986;

Planning application ref: EPO/0046/68– det. of alts & extns. to bung– Approved 13/02/1968; and

Planning application ref: EPR/0386/49– to construct additional bed- room to exist bung. & to erec a fuel & cycle shed – Approved 21/02/1950

Relevant Planning History in the locality

3.2

It is relevant that a number of neighbouring dwellings within this linear enclave have also

been extended, some significantly so, for example Wrenwood, Laurels, Longridge, Derwent, Chase End and The Paddocks, as well as the neighbouring property Beggars Roost which recently gained permission under EPF/1504/15 for a replacement dwelling that has a 45%

increase in volume compared to the original (as stated in the Planning Officer’s report on the Council’s website).

3.3 3.4
In the case of The Paddocks the level of extensions added to this property exceed 133% over and above the original dwelling. Most of the original smaller properties have over time been progressively and significantly extended so as to maximise their plots therefore the precedent for the significant enlargement of these formerly modest dwellings has long been established.

Therefore the effect of the above is to confirm that the principle of extensions are acceptable in principle in the Green Belt. This is discussed further within section 6 and 7 of this statement.

Page 4

Pre-application advice

3.5 3.6
The application site has been the subject of pre-application advice, under reference EF\2017\ENQ\00109, where an opinion of a Planning Officer was sought for the

development as described in paragraph 1.2 of this report. The Planning Officer’s response to this enquiry is detailed in Appendix 1 of this report where it is stated that “that an extension

in this location would not materially impact on the openness of the green belt ” and “ the extension would result in limited harm to the green belt given its limited size and height ”.

In light of this positive pre-application response this application for planning permission has been submitted to EFDC with the expectation of a favourable outcome.

Page 5

4. The Proposals

4.1

This proposal seeks planning permission for the erection of a rear single storey extension

and the replacement of the conservatory roof.

4.2

The description of the development proposed is:

“Erection of a single storey rear extension and replacement of the existing glass conservatory roof with a solid roof”

4.3

The proposals are depicted on the following plans comprising this submission:



Site Location Plan/Existing Plans & Elevations BRD/16/081/001 Proposed Floor Plans & Elevations BRD/16/081/002

4.4

4.5
The proposals do not differ from those proposed at pre-application stage. The proposals are considered below under the following headings:

Use

The proposal would allow the applicant to have greater use of the conservatory which currently leaks and which is cold in the winter months while too hot in the summer months, whilst improving the circulation space between the lounge, kitchen and conservatory. The extension would allow a more efficient use of the existing dwelling and improve the energy efficiency of the existing dwelling.

Amount of Development

4.6 4.7
The proposed replacement roof over the conservatory will be no higher than the existing replacing the existing glass conservatory which leaks and is thermally inefficient.

Layout

The submitted plan, existing floor plan and rear elevation drawing BRD 16/081/001 show the pergola that is currently in place, this will be removed to allow the erection of the extension. The proposed drawing 16/081/SK2 shows how the extension will be of approximately the same footprint as the pergola but will be attached to the conservatory, maintaining the gap between the dwelling and garage building.

Scale

4.8

The proposed extension would be well contained, tucked in between the existing

conservatory and garage. existing roof.
The proposed replacement roof will be no higher than the

Page 6

Appearance

4.9

The architectural style of the extension has been influenced by the character of the existing

dwelling and will utilise matching materials.

4.10 The extension and replacement roof will complement the existing dwelling, they would not be visible from outside the site. The proposed works would have no detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding countryside, they would be inconspicuous and screened from public view.

Landscaping

4.11 The application site is very well screened from views outside the site by existing established hedgerows, trees and vegetation, the proposal does not seek to alter the landscaping.

Page 7

5. Relevant Planning Policies

5.1

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that the

determination must be made in accordance with the plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise, such a Government Policy or emerging Local Policy.

5.2

Government planning policy is set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)

(2012). The NPPF stresses the importance of up-to-date Local Plans in decision making. The presumption in favour of sustainable development makes clear that where the development plan is absent, silent or out of date, permission should be granted unless the adverse impacts of development will significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, or specific policies in the NPPF indicate otherwise.

5.3

5.4
The statutory development plan for this area comprises the Epping Forest Local Plan (as amended in 2006).

Therefore, in terms of assessing the relevant planning policies applicable to the application site, this chapter covers the following:



National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – Relevant as it sets out the Government’s overall approach to decision-taking; and

Epping Forest Local Plan (as amended in 2006) – Provides the vision, objectives and overarching planning policies and strategy for the spatial development of the District.

National Planning Policy Framework

5.5 5.6
The site is located within the Green Belt to which the NPPF and to a degree adopted Local Plan policies apply where consistent with the NPPF.

The National Planning Policy Framework explains that the fundamental aim of Green Belt Policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness. One of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt is to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. The Framework explains that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate development within the Green Belt, apart from some exceptions. Paragraph 89 of the Framework explains what constitutes these exceptions, which include the following:



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

Page 8

5.7

It was submitted at pre-application stage that the proposal could be argued to be a

proportionate addition. The pre-application response from the Council attached as appendix

1 was “ that an extension in this location would not materially impact on the openness of the

green belt” and “the extension would result in limited harm to the green belt given its limite d

size and height” and was therefore acceptable in principle.
5.8

5.9
However, before considering individual policies, it is relevant to consider the weight that may reasonably attached to the Development Plan in this instance.

The Weight to be applied to the Local Plan

The Epping Forest District Local Plan was originally adopted in 1998. A partial alteration was undertaken and adopted in 2006. Annex 1 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) provides details on the weight that can be attached to policies adopted prior to the NPPF.

5.10 Paragraph 214 of the NPPF provides that for a period of 12 months from the day it was

published (i.e. until March 2013), “decision -takers may continue to give full weight to relevant policies adopted since 2004 even if there is a limited degree of conflict with this

Framework”.
5.11 Paragraph 215 goes on to state that, “in other cases and following this 12 month period, due

weight should be given to relevant policies and existing plans according to their degree of consistency with this Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the

Framework, the greater the weight that may be given)”.

5.12 A Plan ‘adopted since 2004’, as set out by paragraph 214 of the NPPF, relates to plans adopted in accordance with the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Whilst the Local Plan was partially altered in 2006, it was not produced, and adopted, in accordance with the 2004 Act.

(i)

Green Belt Policy

5.13 Local Plan Policy GB2A (Development in the Green Belt) sets out that limited extensions to an existing dwelling is acceptable in the Green Belt in accordance with GB14A, which allows up to 50 sq. m additional floorspace. However, the saved policies in the Epping Local Plan should be considered in terms of their degree of consistency with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The closer the Local Plan policies to the policies in the NPPF, the greater the weight that may be given (paragraph 215 of the NPPF). Notwithstanding this Policy GB14A has been superseded by changes in the national General Permitted Development Order and is now unenforceable

5.14 The NPPF is the most up to date expression of national Green Belt policy and is therefore a material consideration, which should be given considerable weight. Green Belt policy as set out in the NPPF provides that “inappropriate development” is by definition harmful to the openness of the Green Belt, and should not be permitted except in “very special

Page 9

circumstances” (this will be discussed further in Section 7 of this report). However, in certain respects, the NPPF does in fact introduce elements of greater flexibility when compared to the old Green Belt policy under PPG2 and the Local Plan. As an example, at paragraph 89, proportionate extensions to existing dwellings were not considered to be inappropriate, whereas the NPPF widens this provision to the proportionate extension of any building, irrespective of whether it is for residential use of other use.

5.15 As set out below, the proposal is limited and proportionate and need not impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

5.16 It is the Applicant’s case that the proposal is supported in principle by the NPPF.

(ii)

Design Policy

5.17 The NPPF states that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development (paragraph 56) and encourages local policies that should set out the quality of development that is expected but whilst policies should seek to reflect local character or identity of an area, policies should not prevent or discourage innovation (paragraph 58). The message is also clear that planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles (paragraph 60).

5.18 Development Plan Policy DBE10 (Extensions to Dwellings) is broadly in accordance with the
NPPF as it requires extensions respect their settings in terms of scale, proportion, siting, height etc. but as explained above the NPPF does now provide more flexibility in order that policies do not impose architectural styles or particular tastes that stifle innovation, originality or initiative.

(iii)

Neighbouring Amenity

5.19 The Council’s existing policy on protection of neighbouring amenity is Policy DBE9. This seeks to ensure that that potential adverse effects, such as excessive visual impact; overlooking; loss of daylight/sunlight; and noise, smell or other disturbance, on neighbouring or adjoining properties are minimised.

5.20 Local Plan Policy is in accordance with the NPPF which requires design of developments to take account of those directly affected by the proposals.

(iv)

National Planning Policy Framework (General)

5.21 With regard to development management, paragraph 14 of the NPPF states that:

Page 10

“A t the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, which should be seen as a golden thread running through both

plan making and decision taking. ….[..]…For decision taking this means:



approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, granting permission unless:

oo

any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole; or Specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be

restricted.”

5.22 Paragraph 15 continues that:

“policies in Local Plans should follow the approach of the presumption in favour of

sustainable development so that it is clear that development which is sustainable can be

approved without delay.”

5.23 Paragraph 56 of the NPPF confirms that the Government attaches great importance to good design. Paragraph 57 refers to the need to plan positively for the achievement of high quality and inclusive design for all development.