Appeal 3359118

The appeal is dismissed.

In the interests of clarity, in the banner heading above I have referred to the description of the proposal given by the appellant on the appeal form as this gives a clear description of the type of development proposed which reflects that used by the council in their decision notice.

Subsequent to the refusal of permission for the proposed development the Government published its revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in December 2024. Further minor amendments were published on 7 February 2025, containing corrections and a clarification. The wording of the relevant paragraphs of the new Framework are similar to that of the 2023 version. Therefore, I am satisfied that they do not affect the substantive matters of the appeal and that considering the development against the revised Framework without seeking further comments from the parties on it would not be prejudicial to their respective cases.

The main issues are:  whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; and the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt;  the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and,  if there would be harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, whether the harm would be clearly outweighed by other considerations to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.

The appeal property is a detached bungalow in a line of 8 properties on [site address] opposite [address] and is located in the Green Belt north of Brentwood. There are other groups of houses along [site address] separated by mature trees which line the road and give it a wooded semi-rural character. Glimpses of the wider landscape show a patchwork of fields bordered by mature trees.

Policy MG02 of the Brentwood Local Plan 2016-2033 (2022) (LP) does not permit inappropriate development in the Green Belt other than in very special circumstances and is consistent with the Framework in this regard. Exceptions considered not to be inappropriate development, set out in paragraph 154 of the Framework, 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, and the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces.

According to the appellant, the appeal proposal would be proportionate to the physical and visual characteristics of the appeal site and wider area. However, an assessment should be based on whether the proposal is proportionate to the original building, not the site, and as the appellant acknowledges a building's footprint can provide an indication of size in this regard.

According to my measurements, taken from the submitted plans, the footprint of the existing dwelling is approximately 132 sqm and the extension would add approximately 106 sqm, an increase of 80%. I do not have the drawings to confirm the area of the side extension that has been added to the original building but, based on the Council’s figures which the appellant has not disputed, with the proposed development it would more than double the size of the dwelling. In either case, the proposed development would be a disproportionate addition.

According to my measurements on site, the existing garage is 2.6m by 5m with a floor space of 18.23 sqm. The proposed replacement garage would be 9.14m by 4.87m with a floor space of 44.60 sqm, more than double the size of the existing garage and thus materially larger. The proposed development would therefore be inappropriate development according to the provisions of the Framework and Policy MG02 of the LP.

The house is set back from the road, close to a bend, with its front lawn, gravel drive and trees along its boundary meeting the road edge with no front boundary wall. Due to its set back position, it is only visible from the road when passing directly in front of the site. The small garage is adjacent to the side boundary enabling views between it and the bungalow through to part of the rear garden giving the plot an open appearance. Trees to its rear provide a backdrop that adds to the general wooded character and encloses the site from wider views within the landscape. The proposed development would substantially increase the size of the house and garage and thus have a spatial impact on openness. It would also bring the house up to the side boundary closing the gap that allows views across to the rear garden. Nonetheless, it would not be significantly different in size to other houses nearby and views of it would be limited such that its overall impact on openness would be minor.

The bungalow is a modest sized L shaped building with a front projecting wing perpendicular to the road and an attached rear element parallel to the road. Whilst some houses further along the road have wider frontages, the nearest neighbouring houses are similarly modest sized bungalows with relatively narrow front elevations. The proposed development would add another forward projecting wing, mirroring the height and design of the existing one, to create a U shaped dwelling.

Whilst it would lend symmetry to the building, it would significantly increase the width of the front elevation, change the character and appearance of the building and appear at odds with the narrow frontages of its neighbours. It would extend to the side boundary, filling the width of the plot and altering its relatively open character. The removal of the existing garage to accommodate the proposed extension, and its replacement with a much larger garage closer to the road, would further erode the garden and its open appearance. Overall, I conclude on this main issue that the proposed development would conflict with Policy BE14 of the LP, the Framework and the National Design Guide (2021) which require development to be of a high quality that responds positively and sympathetically to its context.

Although the appellant has not identified any particular benefits that would arise from the development, there would be benefits in terms of improving the existing living space and arising from short term employment during the extension’s construction. However, I accord these little weight.

A representation raised concerns over the effect of the development upon local wildlife. However, no evidence has been provided to me that any harm would arise from the proposal.

The proposal would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt which would have a minor impact on the openness of 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 character and appearance of the host property. Other considerations do not clearly outweigh the substantial weight that I give to the harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness and effect on openness that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development 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. [planning inspector] INSPECTOR