Appeal 3368578

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for two storey extensions with extension over existing single storey projection at [site address] , [site address] , Wombourne, Staffordshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00318/FULHH, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 0274-P-003 – Existing Site location and block plans; 0274-P-006 – Proposed site location and block plans; 0274-P-001 – Existing floor plans; 0274-P-004-[name] – Proposed floor plans; 0274-P-002 – Existing elevations; and 0274-P-005-[name] – Proposed elevations.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on plan number: 0274-P-005-[name] – Proposed elevations.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

The appeal site is located within the West Midlands Green Belt. The Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework sets out that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, other than in a few exceptions. One such exception at Paragraph 154c) is for the extension or alteration of a building that does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

Policy GB1 of the [name] (2012) (CS) broadly conforms with the Framework. It states that planning permission will normally be permitted within the Green Belt where the proposal is for certain purposes, including alteration of an existing building where the extension or alterations are not disproportionate to the size of the original building.

Neither the Framework nor Policy GB1 define what is meant by a disproportionate addition. However, although only guidance rather than policy, the Green Belt and Open Countryside Supplementary Planning Document (2014) sets out that anything above a 20-40% increase of floor area over the original floor area will be likely to be disproportionate.

The evidence before me indicates that the proposed scheme would see the floor area of the original building increase substantially. The proposed development would therefore result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. As such, it would not meet the exception of Paragraph 154c).

An appeal decision has been cited which relates to a residential extension in the Green Belt1 which was allowed elsewhere in the district. In that instance, the Inspector considered that the extension would not be a disproportionate addition to the original dwelling. However, I do not have the details regarding the percentage increase of floor area relating to that appeal, and therefore cannot be certain that it is directly comparable.

The 2024 updated Framework introduced the concept of grey belt land. Even if I were to accept that the appeal site does not strongly contribute to the purposes of the Green Belt relating to unrestricted sprawl, the merging of towns or the setting of historic towns, in order for development not to be regarded as inappropriate Paragraph 155 of the Framework refers to the use of grey belt land satisfying a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. No evidence has been submitted to indicate that this is applicable in this appeal. Consequently, this paragraph does not render the development not inappropriate.

The proposal would therefore comprise inappropriate development which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. As such, it would be contrary to CS Policy GB1 and the Framework. 1 APP/C3430/D/23/3331921

The concept of Green Belt openness has both a visual and spatial dimension.

The appeal property can be viewed from a neighbouring dwelling. However, it is set well back from the road, largely screened by mature trees and vegetation along the boundaries, and has a generally secluded character. Consequently, the scheme would have no significant effect on the visual aspect of openness of the Green Belt.

However, the proposed extension would lead to the dwelling having a larger floor area and therefore an increase in built form. The proposal would therefore have more of an impact on the openness of the Green Belt in spatial terms than the existing circumstances.

This harm would be limited and localised. Nevertheless, this would be contrary to the Framework which states that an essential characteristic of Green Belts is their openness.

Reference has been made to a fallback position whereby extensions to the appeal property could be constructed as permitted development. Specifically, the appeal property benefits from a Certificate of Lawful Development2 (LDC) for three single storey extensions to the appeal property and a porch. From the evidence before me, the LDC indicates that it would be possible to allow for the original floor area of the property to be extended by 74%. This would be a larger increase than that proposed.

The consideration of a fallback position, including what could be erected under permitted development, is a well-established principle. As the dwelling benefits from an LDC there is a greater than theoretical possibility that, if the appeal is dismissed, the fallback scheme may be implemented. As such it is a material consideration in my determination of the appeal. For significant weight to be afforded to the fallback position, there needs not only to be a reasonable prospect of it being carried out, but it would also need to be more harmful than the scheme for which permission is being sought.

The LDC is for single storey extensions, whilst the proposal would include two-storey extensions. However, the proposal would have a smaller overall floor area and footprint than that permitted by the LDC, which would project further beyond the existing building’s elevations. This would result in a greater spread of built form across the site within the Green Belt. The proposed extension would be more contained within the site, less sprawling and would encroach less into the plot than the fallback scheme.

Due to the secluded location of the dwelling and the lack of visibility from the highway, neither scheme would lead to harm to the visual openness of the Green Belt. Even accounting for the increase in volume at first floor level, the appeal proposal would have a reduced spatial impact on Green Belt openness than the approved LDC scheme. 2 24/01062/LUP

Whilst the appeal scheme would add further bulk and mass to the host dwelling, it would be less harmful to the openness of the Green Belt than the fallback position. The effects of the fallback scheme would therefore be more harmful than those of the proposed development. This is a matter which carries considerable weight in favour of the appeal scheme.

The Framework advises that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. In addition, openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt, so a reduction in openness would also be harmful. Substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt, and very special circumstances will not exist unless that harm, and any other harm, are clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would erode its openness. However, I give considerable weight to the fallback position which may be implemented. This would have a more harmful effect on openness than the appeal scheme. Accordingly, I find the fallback in this instance provides sufficient justification to outweigh the harm that would arise to openness and from inappropriateness and that very special circumstances therefore exist to justify the development.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, in the interests of certainty it is appropriate that there is a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. To protect the character and appearance of the area a condition in respect of materials is necessary. For clarity, I have worded this with reference to those drawings within which materials are specified.

Although there would be conflict with the development plan, the balance of planning considerations in this case indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.