Appeal 3301462

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the description of development from the planning application form and appeal form, though this varies from that on the decision notice. I have used this description of development as there is no evidence that this change has been agreed. Moreover, the description used by the Authority includes the addition of a ground floor window to the existing dwelling. I consider that this would not require planning permission and is not disputed between the parties and as such I have considered the appeal proposals on this basis.

The main issue is whether the proposed extension meets the Authority’s strategy for the extension of existing dwellings within the New Forest National Park (‘National Park’) in the context of adopted policy.

The appeal property is one of a pair of semi-detached dwellings located in a small rural settlement, set in a row of dwellings on [site address] , within the National Park. The proposal is to construct a single storey rear extension which would wrap around the side and rear elevations of the existing house. The rear extension would meet the extent of the rear wall of the adjoining property, known as Glamaig. The parties state that the extension would result in an additional floorspace of between 23.65 and 26.[address] metres.

Policy DP36 of the Local Plan1 seeks to limit the cumulative size of additions to dwellings in order to safeguard the locally distinctive character of the National Park and ensure the maintenance of a balance of housing stock. Policy DP36 [address] Local Plan 2016-2036 (August 2019) confirms that extensions to existing dwellings will be permitted provided that they are appropriate to the existing dwelling and its curtilage. For small dwellings, the extension must not result in a total internal habitable floorspace exceeding [address] metres. In the case of all other dwellings which do not fall within this category, and outside ‘[name], the extension must not increase the floorspace of the existing dwelling by more than 30%.

The explanatory text to Policy DP36 goes on to confirm the definitions for the purposes of calculating sizes of the original dwelling and extensions, including to confirm that a ‘small dwelling’ has a floor area of [address] metres or less as it existed on 1 July 1982, or as it was originally built or legally established after that date.

The parties agree that the dwelling is located in a rural area outside the [name]. The appellant asserts that the dwelling is 80.[address] metres, whereas the Authority considers that the original floorspace is 79.[address] metres. Notwithstanding these discrepancies, the proposed development would result in a cumulative extension to the original of between 42-46% or a total resultant floorspace of between [address] metres. Whether or not the property would be classified as a small dwelling, these figures would exceed the limits of 30% or [address] metres as set out in DP36 and as such the proposal contrary to this policy.

I accept that the extension is appropriate to the existing dwelling and its curtilage, remains subservient and the design is complementary and sympathetic to the character and appearance of the host dwelling. Even so, these matters do not overcome or outweigh the direct conflict with Policy DP36 and its aims to protect the National Park and the balance of housing stock.

The appellant states that the development would be identical to that at the adjoining property. Additionally, the appellant asserts that there are a number of appeal decisions where extensions have been permitted which exceed the limits set out by Policy DP36. The circumstances in each proposal are likely to be different, and in any event the fact that apparently similar development has been granted permission is not a reason, on its own, to allow unacceptable development. I have considered this appeal proposal on its own merits and concluded that it would cause harm for the reasons set out above.

I accept that there would be no harm to neighbouring occupiers as a result of overbearing, loss of privacy or loss of daylight or sunlight, nonetheless this does not overcome the conflict with policy found above.

I note that there were no objections from neighbours nor the Parish Council, however support or a lack of objection to a scheme is not a reason in itself to allow development.

I accept that the appeal property would still remain relatively modest in size and the proposal would improve the living arrangements by providing additional dining space especially for visiting family. [name] appreciate the appellant’s desire to provide living space more suitable to their needs as well as provide a more energy efficient dwelling, it has not been shown that this is the only way of achieving the appellants’ aims of providing additional space and increased energy performance. Therefore, I give this matter limited weight.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal be dismissed.