Appeal 3347380

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the condition is necessary and reasonable having regard to local and national policies relating to proposals affecting the Green Belt.

The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling on a large plot. The area is characterised by linear development along [site address] , with dwellings set back from the highway behind front gardens and driveways. Gaps in built form along the road provide glimpses of open land, which is located to the rear and opposite the appeal site. The views of open land combined with boundary hedgerows, landscaping, and wide grass verges gives the area an open verdant feel.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) denotes openness as an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. The openness of the Green Belt has a spatial aspect as well as a visual aspect. ‘Open’ can mean the absence of development in spatial terms, and it follows that openness can be harmed even when development is not readily visible from the public realm.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate. It goes on to provide a number of exceptions. One such exception (154 c)) is 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.

Warwick District Local Plan (2017) (LP) Policies H14 and DS18 relate to extensions to dwelling in the open countryside and Green Belt. Whilst neither policy define a disproportionate addition the explanatory text for Policy H14 states that as a guide an increase of more than 30% to the gross floorspace of the original dwelling is likely to be considered disproportionate.

The reason for the condition is clear in that the Council wants the existing garage to be removed in order to protect the Green Belt. It is clear from the evidence provided by the appellant that a previous planning application1 was refused due to the Council considering the extension to be a disproportionate addition. The Council noted that the original dwelling appears to have been significantly extended over time, and the proposed extension and the retention of the garage, the dwelling would have a floor space increase of approximately 124%. These figures have not been disputed by the appellant. Taken together, these increases would amount to a substantial addition to the property, and one which I find to be disproportionate over and above the size of the original building.

There is no defined way of assessing and measuring proportionality, but the Framework refers to ‘size.’ This can, in my view, refer to volume, height, external dimensions, footprint, floorspace or visual perception. The appellant contends the retention of the garage would be proportional. The garage to be demolished appears as a side extension, almost flush with the front elevation of the host dwelling, which contributes to its visual bulk. Its removal would create a step back from the front elevation, increasing the subserviency and visual bulk of the side extension which would improve the sense of openness when viewed from the public highway. The retention of the garage, along with the proposed extension and other extensions, would subsume the original dwelling and would therefore be visually disproportionate.

I have had regard to the appellants submission relating to nearby development, which includes an area of land nearby that has been removed from the Green Belt to be allocated for housing and a caravan park is located to the north of the site. They have also referenced a number of recent developments in the local area including infill housing, construction of a community centre and place of worship and HS2. I have not been provided with full details of each case; however, they do not relate to the extensions of dwellings. Indeed, they relate to the construction of dwellings, community facilities and infrastructure which may have policy support or very special circumstances. As such, I do not consider that the matters raised are directly comparable and I have dealt with the appeal on its own merits.

The appellant has referred to permitted development rights which could be utilised to construct a garage to the front of the host dwelling. The appellant has not provided any plans or measurement of such a building. In any event, any future garage would be provided as a separate building with a gap between it and the host dwelling. It would not increase the visual bulk of the dwelling, and any gap would provide a spatial separation between it and the dwelling. 1 W/23/1085 refused 6 October 2023

Accordingly, the removal of the condition in order to retain the garage would not comply with [name] H14 and DS18 which seeks to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate and thus harmful development.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.