Appeal 6000243

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the Council’s decision notice as it more comprehensively describes the appeal development than the one set out on the planning application form. I have amended it by deleting the word ‘retrospective’ which is not an act of development.

I saw at my site visit that the side and rear extension had been constructed on site.

The Council are satisfied that the proposed conversion of the garage would not result in harm to neighbouring amenity, highway safety or detract from the appearance of the host dwelling and I see no reason to depart from this view.

Therefore the main issues are: (i) whether the extension constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; (ii) its effect on the openness of the Green Belt; (iii) its effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area and (iv) if it is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.

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 development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of the listed exceptions apply. The Council has assessed the proposal against exception c) of that paragraph which relates to the extension or alteration of a building provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building1. As neither the Framework nor the LP define what is meant by either ‘size’ or ‘disproportionate’, this is a matter of planning judgement.

In my view ‘size’ can include dimensions, volume, mass and footprint. As plans and elevation drawings of the original building or those of the extensions approved in 19772 are not before me, my assessment in this instance must necessarily be limited to footprint.

There is no dispute that the original building had a footprint of [address] metres (sqm) and was subsequently extended following the approval in 1977. With the extension before me in this appeal, the Council say that the footprint of the host dwelling now amounts to 182 sqm, whilst the appellant puts it at 248 sqm. Even if I take the lower of these two figures, this means the footprint of the host dwelling as I saw on site, is more than two and a half times greater than the original bungalow.

This is a significant increase in the footprint of the host dwelling. In my view, this scale of development constitutes disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building and consequently, the proposal fails to meet the exception under Paragraph 154 c) of the Framework.

The appellant contends that the proposal constitutes ‘infilling’. In the absence of a definition in the Framework, I take this to be the filling of a gap between properties in an otherwise built-up frontage which the appeal scheme would not. Consequently, the proposal cannot benefit from the exceptions in Paragraph 154 e) or 154 g).

The proposal is therefore inappropriate development which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. This conflicts with both the Framework and Policy G2 of the LP, the aims of which I have set out above.

Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. There is no formal definition of openness but, in the context of the Green Belt, it is generally held to refer to an absence of development. Openness can have spatial and visual aspects.

The appeal property is located in a good size plot. The extension would only occupy a small proportion of it, with the rest of the garden remaining predominantly open. Nonetheless the extension involves land which would have been undeveloped space in the Green Belt. As such, there would be an unavoidable reducing effect on the spatial aspect of its openness. There would be a more 1 Defined in the glossary to the Framework as a building as it existed on 1st July 1948, or if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was built originally. 2 [name]: L/HAV/856/77 limited effect on the visual aspect given that the extension is largely at the rear and in an area with existing residential development.

Taken together, the spatial and visual impacts of the proposal results in some reduction in openness. However, having regard to the overall context of the appeal property, the harm to the openness of the Green Belt would be modest. Be that as it may, and taking into account one of the fundamental aims of Green Belt policy being to keep land permanently open, the appeal scheme reduces the openness of the Green Belt. This conflicts with the Framework. This harm would be in addition to that caused by the development’s inappropriateness.

The Residential Extensions and Alterations Supplementary Planning Document, adopted 2011 (SPD) says that ‘as a general rule’ detached dwellings can be extended by up to 4m on the rear. It does not state that deeper extensions will not be permitted but suggests that these should be within an angle of 45 degrees to ensure a reasonable level of amenity is afforded to neighbours. There is no dispute that the appeal development does not have an adverse impact on neighbours.

The SPD also states that whether the depth of an extension is acceptable will depend on site specific considerations. In this instance, the proposal is largely located to the rear of the host dwelling. Whilst the flat roof is at odds with the main hipped roof, it helps to reduce the visual bulk of the addition.

The SPD acknowledges that flat roofs are generally acceptable. Whilst it can be seen from the road, the house is well set back from the road such that it is not a prominent or incongruous addition.

I have had regard to the width, size and shape of the appeal site together with the size and positioning of the host dwelling and the extension. I have also had regard to the size and proximity of neighbouring dwellings. I find that the extension does not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the wider area and no conflict arises with Policy D4 of the LP and Policies 7 and 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031, adopted November 2021, which require high quality design.

I note that there are good sized properties nearby, including two-storey dwellings, and that the host dwelling is relatively modest in this context. I have also had regard to the relatively modest size of the extension when compared to the plot size. Be that as it may, it does not alter my assessment against Paragraph 154 c) of the Framework and carries limited weight in my assessment.

I have been provided with a list of planning applications approved for neighbouring properties, which includes proposals for single storey rear extensions. However, from the limited information provided, I cannot draw any comparisons with the appeal proposal and therefore this carries limited weight in my assessment.

The approval of extensions in 1977 does not set a precedent for further extensions at the appeal site. Paragraph 154 c) of the Framework seeks to avoid properties becoming ever larger through incremental extensions, and the associated increase in built form in the Green Belt.

I understand that the work has been done under the supervision of Building Control and is awaiting a completion certificate. However, it does not alter the conclusions I have come to and carries limited weight.

Notwithstanding the concerns raised by an interested party, the appeal scheme does not involve a change of use. I have assessed the proposal on the basis of it being an extension to the host dwelling. The lack of change to the appeal site’s use or character is a neutral factor.

[name] have not identified any harm in respect of the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area, the appeal scheme constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. There would also be modest harm arising from the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt. The Framework dictates that substantial weight is to be given to any harm caused to the Green Belt.

Policy G2 of the LP and Paragraph 153 of the Framework states that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

In this balancing exercise, the totality of other considerations in support of the development are of limited weight and do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist and conflict arises with Policy G2 of the LP and the Framework, which seek to protect the Green Belt.

For the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.