Appeal 3308198

The appeal is dismissed.

These are: • Whether the proposed extension would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, if so, whether other considerations clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, so as to amount to very special circumstances; and • The effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] with particular reference to visual impact, overshadowing and privacy.

Policy PMD6 of the [name] and Policies for the Management of Development 2015 indicates that permission will only be granted for new development in the Green Belt provided certain requirements are met. Extensions to buildings must not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. This reflects the National Planning Policy Framework. Furthermore, for residential extensions this means that they should be no larger than two reasonably sized rooms or any equivalent amount. This was explained by the Inspector who dismissed an appeal for a two-storey side extension at the property last year1.

The Council’s undisputed calculations are that the habitable floorspace of the original building is 92 sq m and that the extension would have a floorspace of almost 39 sq m. This would represent an increase of over 42% and would exceed the figure given for the two reasonably sized rooms allowance. An addition of this size would be approaching half of the floorspace of the original 1 Ref: APP/M1595/D/20/3258911 dwelling and, on this basis, would be disproportionate. Therefore, having regard to the provisions of Policy PMD6 and the Framework, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Nevertheless, in the context of a fairly recent estate of 24 houses, the proposed extension would not conflict with any of the Green Belt purposes listed in the Framework and the reduction in openness would be insignificant.

The proposed extension would be close to the side boundary of [address]. The appellant highlights the rear projection at [address] but the side-by-side juxtaposition of Nos 4 and 5 is quite different to the angled relationship between the appeal property and No 7. Because of this and the presence of the existing dwelling, the proposal would not lead to an overbearing visual impact or to a significant curtailment of sunlight. However, the two first floor bedroom windows would afford views directly down into the rear garden of No 7 and this would result in a serious loss of privacy.

Therefore, the proposal would harm the living conditions of the occupiers of [address] due to the significant overlooking that would occur. As a result, it would conflict with Policy PMD1 of the [name] and Policies for the Management of Development which indicates that development will not be permitted where it would cause unacceptable effects on the amenity of others.

The appellant has not directly addressed the reason for refusal relating to the Green Belt or put forward any other considerations in support of the proposal. Nevertheless, the extension would clearly be beneficial in increasing the amount of available living accommodation at the property.

The design of the proposed addition would be in keeping with other houses within the group as it would feature a gable end roof and use complementary materials. Indeed, there are similar projections to many of the other dwellings at [address] and in [address]. However, achieving well-designed places is an expectation of all development and so this aspect of the scheme does not count positively in its favour.

The proposal would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. In accordance with the Framework, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. The proposed extension would also harm the living conditions of adjoining occupiers. Other considerations provide little support for the proposal. These do not, therefore, clearly outweigh the totality of harm and so very special circumstances do not exist.

The proposed extension would not accord with the development plan and there are no other material considerations to outweigh that finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed.