Appeal 3320466

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a two storey extension at [site address] , Romsley, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/00690/FUL, dated 17 May 2022, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule.

The main issues are: • The effect on the character and appearance of the host building and the setting of the neighbouring farmhouse; • the effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and • whether inappropriate development and if so do very special circumstances apply.

The appeal site forms part of a small group of buildings, originally around a farmstead, situated in open countryside to the north of Bromsgrove. The area forms part of the Green Belt. It is apparent that [site address] was an agricultural building converted to a dwellinghouse following the grant of permission on appeal in 20121. The adjacent property [address] appears to be a replacement dwelling allowed in January 2002 and [name] is a residence occupying both two storey and a courtyard of single storey buildings.

The Council refers to the setting of the non-designated heritage assets of the historic barn and farmhouse but it is now clear that [address] is a relatively 1 [name]/P1805/A/12/2177823 new replacement house. Further, [name] appears to be much extended and this limits the weight that can be placed on its historic form and setting.

[site address] itself has a mainly linear form with elevations of wood cladding stained dark brown under a roof of dark sheeting with raised bands. Although the extension proposed would extend away from this linear form the degree of projection is not great and the proposal is to use matching external materials. Further, while the barn had origins as an agricultural building, the introduction of fenestration on the front and main side elevation also gives the building some domestic character. I find that the scale and form of the extension proposal would not materially harm the original form of the building.

Moreover, little of the proposed extension would be seen from the public realm as its presence would mostly be hidden by [name] and the high solid gates that exist from the shared access into the site. I also considered the impact of the proposal from the public footpath which runs to the north-west of [name] but most of the views here are restricted by the high boundary wall and the presence of other buildings around the overall enclave.

I have taken account of the guidance in the Council’s High Quality Design SPD– particularly section 3.10 on residential extensions on previously converted rural buildings. In this case I am satisfied that the bulk and form of the extension proposed and including the matching external materials will reasonably maintain the character and utilitarian nature of the building.

Overall on this issue I find that the proposed extension would not detract from the setting of a nearby non-designated heritage asset and would reasonably fit in with the simple form and design of the original building and not have an imposing or harmful visual effect outside of the environs of the site. As such the proposal does not conflict with Policies BDP20.2 or BDFP.20.3 of the Bromsgrove Development Plan.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) makes clear in paragraph 149 that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within one of the listed exceptions. The relevant one in this case is (c) the extension or alteration of a building providing that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The Framework does not define ‘disproportionate’ however related local Green Belt Policy BDP4.4 indicates that for an existing residential dwelling an increase of up to 40% of the original dwelling would not be inappropriate, provided that this scale of development has no adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

The Council acknowledges that the proposal falls with the 40% limit as the total change amounts to about a 19% addition, however the Council considers that the further test on openness is not met.

It is established that the effect on the openness of a Green Belt can have both spatial and visual dimensions. My assessment on visual impact is similar to that set out above concerning the effect on the character and appearance of the area. The extension would not be very noticeable from the public realm around [site address] or the public footpath mentioned above as it would largely be screened by the presence of existing buildings and structures. Even considered on its own under the spatial dimension I am satisfied that the size of the additional built structure proposed is not large as evidenced by the relatively low percentage increase as measured by the Council.

Overall on this issue I find that the proposed extension would not be a disproportionate addition to the original building and would meet the criteria set out in paragraph 149 (c) of the Framework. It would also not have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt. As such I conclude that the proposal does not constitute ‘inappropriate development’ and it accords with the provisions of Policy BDP.4. I therefore do not need to consider whether very special circumstances apply.

On the main issues I have found that the proposed extension would not detract from the setting of the nearby non-designed heritage asset and would reasonably fit in with the simple form and design of the host building and wider surroundings. The proposal should also not be regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt as it would not result in a disproportionate addition and would not have an adverse impact on its openness. I have also found that the proposal reasonably accords with relevant local and national policy on these aspects.

This conclusion has to be balanced with other considerations but none arise which outweigh this conclusion. The appeal should therefore be allowed.

The Council suggests that four conditions be imposed which I will consider under the same numbering. Conditions 1, 2 and 3 are reasonable and necessary to define the permission and ensure that the external materials match the existing building.

Under recommended condition 4 the Council requests that various ‘permitted development’ rights are restricted in order ‘to protect the openness of the Green Belt’. However, this type of restriction should not be imposed unilaterally without special justification. Nevertheless, I note that such a condition was imposed on the permission for the residential use of [site address] granted on appeal and it would be inconsistent and impractical for the extension not to have a similar limitation. The reason for the condition would be to maintain the basic form and scale of the original building and limit the effect of further extensions and alterations on the openness of the Green Belt. I will therefore impose it.

For the reasons given I conclude that the appeal should succeed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

All new external walls and roofs shall be finished in materials to match in colour, form and texture those on the existing building.

The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans and drawings: [name]. 03 Proposed Floor Plan, dated May 2022, received 18.5.22 [name]. 04; Proposed Elevations Plan, dated May 2022, received 18.5.22; [name]. 05 Proposed Block Plan, dated May 2022, received 18.5.22.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no development included within Schedule 2, Part 1, [name] to E shall be carried out without express planning permission first being obtained from the Local Planning Authority.