Appeal 6000158

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing buildings and extensions and construction of double storey side extension, new raised roof, internal reconfiguration and material changes to elevation at [site address] , Upminster, Havering [postcode] in accordance with the terms of application Ref P1369.24, 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 drawing numbers: PL-6083_01; PL-6083_01.1; PL-6083_07; PL-6083_08A; PL-6083_10A and PL-6083_12A.

No development above ground level shall take place until details of all the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved materials.

The extensions hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the existing parts of the dwelling and garage identified in red on drawing number PL-6083_07 titled ‘Demolition Proposal’ shall have been demolished and all materials resulting from the demolition have been removed from the site.

The main issue is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies, including an assessment of the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt.

The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Policy G2 of The London Plan adopted March 2021 (LP) requires that the Green Belt is protected from inappropriate development. Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that new buildings are inappropriate in the Green Belt unless one of the listed exceptions apply. The Council has assessed the proposal against exception c) of that paragraph. The appellant asserts that the proposal should be considered against exception g).

The exception in Paragraph 154 g) relates to limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The Framework defines previously developed land as land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure but, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, excludes land in built-up areas such as residential gardens.

The existing dwelling is in a rural location which is not ‘built-up’. The appeal proposal includes the demolition of various existing parts of the dwelling including a porch, conservatory, a single storey wrap around extension to the rear and side and a detached double garage. In their place, a two-storey extension is proposed together with raising the ridge. Given the extent of demolition and rebuilding works, I am satisfied that the proposal amounts to a partial redevelopment of previously developed land. I therefore turn to whether the appeal building causes substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

The provision of a two-storey extension together with an increase in the ridge would result in a building of increased height, scale, mass and bulk. It would be visible particularly when viewed from the highway to the front of the site and this would have an effect on the openness of the Green Belt.

However, the demolition of the existing conservatory on one end of the building and the detached garage at the other end, would reduce the spread of buildings across the appeal site. In addition, the appeal site is located in a landscape which lacks undulation. The flat topography of the appeal site and the wider landscape, results in a heightened sense of openness. In these circumstances, and notwithstanding that it would be visible from the highway, the openness of the Green Belt would not be notably diminished as a result of the appeal proposal. It therefore follows that the appeal proposal would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Thus, there is no need to assess the proposal against exception c).

I conclude that the appeal proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt by virtue of Paragraph 154 g) of the Framework and no conflict with Policy G2 of the LP would arise.

In addition to the standard time condition, it is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty. A condition to secure matching materials is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area. A condition securing the demolition of the existing buildings is necessary to ensure that the development does not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

The appeal proposal adheres to the development plan there are no material considerations that outweigh this finding. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.