Appeal 3262699

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Wiltshire Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

Planning permission has been granted for the demolition of [address] and replacement with a larger dwelling of contemporary design. The application that is the subject of this appeal sought to amend the design by increasing the ground floor area of the permitted development and adding two terraces at first floor level. The planning route taken for this was to apply for variation of conditions 2 and 5 of the permitted development. Condition 2 deals with the approved plans and condition 5 with the timing requirement for the implementation of the soft landscaping.

The main issue is what effect varying conditions 2 and 5 would have on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site lies within the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) in a rural and tranquil settlement called [site address] . The properties within the settlement are generally of traditional design with pitched roofs, some of which are thatched, and elevations in brick and flint, although there are some rendered properties. The National Planning Policy Framework makes clear at paragraph 172 that great weight should be attached to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty of AONBs.

Planning permission already exists on the site for the demolition of the existing traditional cottage and its replacement with a dwelling of contemporary design. The proposed development that would be facilitated by the variation of conditions 2 and 5 would have the effect of increasing the ground floor area of the permitted building and adding two first floor terraces. At the time of my site visit work was well underway with the implementation of this proposed design.

The increase in floor area of the ground floor would be facilitated by the extension of the two ‘wings’ by about 4m each, thus increasing the length of both the north and south elevations. The proposed roof terraces would be situated on the flat roofs of these wings, the west terrace being the larger of the two with steps leading down to ground floor level at the far western end of the wing. The terraces would have a parapet and planting would be undertaken to soften their appearance.

Nonetheless, whilst not highly visible from public viewpoints the terraces and their users would be visible from several nearby properties including [address], [address] and [address], the latter being about 130m away. Whilst the proposed terraces would be far enough away from these properties to negate privacy issues, they would be the only terraces in the settlement, thus seeming as an alien and incongruous feature in the landscape. Furthermore, to my mind the fact that they would introduce human activity and associated paraphernalia into such a tranquil and rural setting at first floor level would seem intrusive would also be detrimental to the character and appearance of the AONB.

In arriving at this conclusion I am aware that the development already includes some activity at first floor level. This is however contained and at a considerably smaller scale than that which would result from the proposed change in design. I also note that lighting could be controlled by condition, which would go some way to limiting the impact of the terraces. However, it would be the presence of the terraces and any activity upon them, which would not be completely concealed by the proposed planting, that would seem out of keeping with the area, and to this end I note that the appellant accepts that the formal roof terraces would change the function of the space.

In that the proposed development would therefore detract from the tranquillity of the AONB and introduce motion into an unexpected location, conflict would occur with Core Policy 51 (vii) of the [name] (CS), which seeks to ensure, amongst other things, that proposals have demonstrated that the aspects of tranquillity and protection from intrusion from motion have been conserved and where possible enhanced. Conflict would also occur with policy CP 57 of the CS. This requires that proposals respond positively to existing townscape and landscape features in terms of, amongst other things, rooflines.

The original permitted development was accompanied by a Landscape and [name] assessment (LVIA) by [name]. This looked at a number of viewpoints and concluded that, taking into account the existing vegetation and topography and with the proposed mitigation planting, the proposed development, in terms of its design, mass and scale, could be assimilated comfortably into the landscape and that the overall Significance of [name] would be negligible. From my own observations I do not consider that the extended wings of the proposed development would change this position. Consequently there would be no conflict with policies CP 51 or CP 57 in relation to the mass or size of the proposed dwelling.

Notwithstanding this however, my findings in relation to the matter of the terraces indicates that conditions 2 and 5 are necessary in their present form and that therefore the appeal should be dismissed.