Appeal 6000016

The appeal is dismissed.

On 12 December 2024, during the appeal process, the Government published its revised National Planning Policy Framework (Framework). The main parties have had opportunity to comment on the revisions, and any comments received have been taken into account in my decision.

The Council is in the process of reviewing its Local Plan. Although not referred to in its decision, copies of its policies are before me, and they attract some weight as the review is at an advanced stage.

The Council amended the description of development that the appellant originally used, and this amended description has been used by both parties in the appeal submissions. It more accurately describes the appeal proposal than the original description. For these reasons I have used the amended description in the banner heading above, although I have removed the reference to ‘retrospective application’, as this is not an act of development.

Although not complete, the development subject of this appeal has largely been carried out. I shall consider the appeal on this basis.

The main issues are: a) Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the Framework and relevant development plan policies, b) The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt, c) The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, and d) Whether other considerations clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm, so as to amount to very special circumstances.

Paragraph 154 c) of the Framework establishes that extensions in the Green Belt are inappropriate unless they do not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Paragraph a: iv. of Policy DM15 of Barnet’s Local Plan Development Management Policies 2012 (DMP) accords with this Framework paragraph. Emerging Policy ECC05 of the Barnet Local Plan 2021 to 2036 (LP) clarifies that any proposals for development in the Green Belt will be considered in accordance with the Framework.

The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document: Residential Design Guidance 2016 (SPD) expands on this at paragraph 14.48 by suggesting that as a guiding principle the volume of the original dwelling should not be increased by more than 25%.

The extensions have added considerable bulk and scale to the original dwelling and when considered together they result in significant extension to the dwelling. The acceptable volume suggested in the SPD is only a guide, however the extensions go well beyond this. On this basis and taking into account the physical change that has occurred to the building, I find that the extensions should be considered disproportionate.

I note that some extensions were already approved by the Council, however the further additions to which the appeal relates are considerable, and the assessment I need to make is how these compare with the original building.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework provides a further exception for development in the Green Belt where certain criteria apply. 155 a. refers to grey belt land. Grey belt land is defined as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of the purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143.

The site and adjoining area is already developed and has an established suburban character that is unrelated to a historic town; thus, the development does not contribute to the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas, the merger of neighbouring towns, and neither does it harm the setting and special character of historic towns. Accordingly, the site can be said to not strongly contribute to any of the purposes a), b) or d) of Framework paragraph 143, and can therefore be defined as grey belt land and satisfies Framework paragraph 155 a.

Criteria b. requires there to be a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. The development is a domestic extension to a private dwelling. There is no evidence before me to demonstrate that it meets an unmet need, so the proposal fails when measured against this requirement. Paragraph 155 of the Framework does not therefore provide a further exception in this case.

In summary, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would not accord with DM15 of the DMP, Emerging Policy ECC05 of the LP or the SPD, which together seek to protect the Green Belt against inappropriate development.

A fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to keep land permanently open as defined in the Framework. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The openness of a Green Belt has a spatial aspect as well as a visual aspect.

The dwelling has been extended to the front, side and rear. Given that I have found that the development has extended the original dwelling significantly to the extent that it is considered a disproportionate addition to the dwelling, it follows that the development has also had an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt in spatial terms.

As to the visual aspect of openness, the extensions relate well to the existing building, and the building stands in a row of other similarly sized dwellings. The development has not therefore extended towards an open area or undeveloped land. As such, I find that the development has not had an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt in visual terms.

The dwelling stands near to the edge of a built-up area; although the road is developed to either side and opposite with consistent rows of large detached dwellings that are set back from the road and occupy generously sized plots.

The Council’s refusal reason refers to the rear extension. This is broad and extends a substantial distance from the rear of the original building. I note that this goes beyond the advice in the SPD. However, in this case, the building line at the rear is varied and the extension does not appear oversized for the large plot, overdeveloped, or incongruous in the context of the dwellings to either side. The rear of the dwelling is not easy to view beyond the nearby rear gardens, so there is no meaningful impact on the wider area.

In summary, the development at the rear has not harmed the character or appearance of the area. In this respect it accords with Policy D3 of the London Plan 2021, Policies CS1 and CS5 of Barnet’s Local Plan Core Strategy 2012, Policy DM01 of the DMP and [name] GSS01 and CDH01 of the LP. Together these seek to ensure good standards of design that respects local context.

In support of the proposal the appellant refers to various house extensions that have been consented nearby. Whilst copies of plans for these are before me, there is nothing to explain the detail or circumstances of individual decisions. Therefore, I give these other examples limited weight.

The appellant suggests that the proposal would not cause any harm to the Green Belt and points out that the site is close to the Green Belt edge. However, the Framework is clear that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt.

The extensions are inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The Framework establishes that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt and development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. In addition, I have found that the proposal would also have a modest impact on the openness of the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The other considerations before me are limited and carry little weight. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

Therefore, for the reasons above, the appeal should be dismissed.