Appeal 3333550

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt, • its effect on openness, and • whether other considerations clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, so as to amount to very special circumstances. Whether the proposed development represents inappropriate development in the

The appeal building is a small semi-detached rural cottage with a garden and is located in a corner position next to the junction of [address] and the unmade track of [address].

Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) advises that a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate development in the Green Belt, subject to identified exceptions. The listed exceptions include 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. The original building refers to that which existed on 1 July 1948, or if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was built originally. The Framework does not indicate what increase in floorspace, or volume would be disproportionate. The Central Bedfordshire Design Guide seeks to ensure that to be considered as proportionate the original building should not be added to by more than 60% of footprint, floorspace and volume.

The Council has calculated that the proposed footprint of the extension taken together with previous extensions would represent a cumulative 143% increase compared to that of the original dwelling. The cumulative floorspace increase is estimated at 153% compared to that of the original dwelling. Although the appellant is critical of the Council’s information no details of previous extensions have been submitted by the appellant to clearly demonstrate that the Council’s records or calculations are incorrect.

The cumulative increase in floorspace, taking account of the proposed development and previous extensions, compared to the original building is well over the Council’s guideline of 60%, in conflict with Section 7 of the [name]. I find that the proposal would involve a significant cumulative increase in floorspace, with the consequent increase in mass and therefore building size, and would constitute a disproportionate addition to the building. Therefore, it would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt

Paragraph 152 of the Framework indicates that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The proposal would conflict with Central Bedfordshire Local Plan policy SP4 which includes a general presumption against inappropriate development.

In accordance with the National Planning Practice Guidance, the openness of the Green Belt is capable of having both spatial and visual aspects – in other words, the visual impact of the proposal may be relevant, as could its volume. The visual impact of the extension would be limited because of its location at the rear of the dwelling. However, there would be significant harm spatially, because of the overall increased size and scale of the dwelling.

There is a large, detached dwelling with timber cladding next to the appeal building, with an access from [address]. The general area mainly includes detached properties of varying size and scale. There are large agricultural buildings and garages and an industrial area around 100 metres away. The Council considers that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area. I see no reason to disagree given that the extension would be sited to the rear of the existing dwelling and there would only be a partial view of the development from [address]. This is not a positive benefit and therefore a neutral weight in the overall balance.

The appellant advises that the adjoined dwelling of [address] has undergone multiple extensions over time. However, no information has been submitted as to how any extensions came about. I therefore attach minimal weight to this matter. The proposal would allow the ground floor area and carport to be re-configured and improve living conditions for the occupants. However, it is possible that improvements could be made without extending the building as proposed. I therefore accord this factor limited weight. I am advised that [address] has permission for demolition and replacement by two new properties in GB. Nevertheless, that permission is a separate matter and not a reason which would justify the appeal proposal. I do not therefore attach any weight to it.

Paragraph 153 of the Framework advises that when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. I have concluded that there would be harm to the Green Belt as the development is inappropriate and that there would be harm to the openness of the Green Belt. I afford these substantial weight in my balance. I have considered other considerations above and these have only attracted minimal or limited weight.

I find that other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified. Looking at the case as a whole, I consider that very special circumstances do not exist to justify the development. The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan and the Framework.

For the reasons given above the appeal is dismissed.