Appeal 6000459

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • 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 required to justify the proposal.

The appeal site lies within the Green Belt. Policy G2 of the London Plan 2021 (LP) states that the Green Belt should be protected from inappropriate development, and development proposals that would harm the Green Belt should be refused except where very special circumstances exist.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) lists the types of development that are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, subject to certain conditions. This includes 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 (paragraph 154(c)).

The appeal site comprises a hipped roof detached house with two storey side and single storey rear additions implemented following an approval in 1977. The volume of the original property was around 391 cubic metres, and the volume of the existing extensions is around 331.7 cubic metres, with the latter amounting to approximately 84% of the cubic capacity of the original dwelling. Therefore, there have already been significant additions to the original building.

The proposal is to increase the roof height of the main house and side extension, install a large rear dormer and two small front dormers and change the roofs from hip to gable ends, creating an additional floor of habitable accommodation. The Framework does not define ‘disproportionate additions’ nor set a numerical limit on these. However, when viewed cumulatively alongside the existing extensions, due to the increase in height, volume and floorspace, the appeal scheme would result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building.

There is reference to the Council’s approval of a scheme at the adjacent property at Deeside, which has subsequently been implemented. The appellant states that it related to the conversion of a bungalow involving partial demolition and extensions, whereas the Council indicates that it concerned a replacement dwelling which was regarded as being not materially larger.

The Council’s officer’s report for the adjacent proposal noted that whilst volumetric increase is a helpful tool in gauging disproportionality, this is not a conclusive means and is a matter of judgement. In that case, the Council considered the scheme was significantly larger than what currently existed but was not sufficiently detrimental so as to justify a recommendation for refusal due to the absence of any significant impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

However, there is no substantive evidence indicating the size of the original and enlarged dwelling at Deeside, so I am unable to compare that proposal to the one before me or consider any potential inconsistencies in the Council’s approach. I have found that the current proposed scheme for Upweys would result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building.

Consequently, the proposal would not constitute an exception as set out under paragraph 154(c) of the Framework and therefore it would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

As set out in the Framework, the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Openness is the counterpart of urban sprawl and often connotates the absence of development. It is an open textured term and can have both spatial and visual dimensions.

The higher, gable ended roof would be significantly greater in size than the existing hipped roof, and the addition of dormers on both sides would further increase the amount of built development. Therefore, the house with the proposed roof extension would be more substantial in its height, form and volume and less open in its appearance than the existing building. This would harm the spatial openness of the Green Belt, albeit this harm would be limited given the scale of the proposal.

The site lies adjacent to [site address] from where the appeal scheme would be clearly visible. As such, the proposed roof extension would also impact on visual openness. Therefore, there would be a demonstrable loss of openness, in both visual and spatial terms.

Works to enlarge or replace the adjacent dwelling at Deeside were approved and then undertaken. Given the lack of information on the original and extended sizes of this neighbouring property, I accord only limited weight to the scale of Deeside relative to the proposed scheme.

From the reason for refusal and the Council’s officer’s report, it is ambiguous whether the Council takes issue with the character and appearance of the proposed scheme. The appellant argues that it would create visual harmony and continuity, particularly in relation to Deeside, and be in keeping with the established character of [site address] , in accordance with Policy 26 of the Havering Local Plan 2016-2031. Nevertheless, given my findings in relation to Green Belt issues, there is no need to consider this matter in any detail.

The Council did not find harm or development plan conflict in relation to neighbouring living conditions. However, even if I were to agree with the Council on this point, the absence of harm would be a neutral matter which would not carry weight in favour of the proposal.

The Framework indicates that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. There would also be adverse impacts on its openness. Substantial weight should be given to the harm caused to the Green Belt and very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations.

I give limited weight to the scale of the neighbouring house at Deeside. However, the other considerations would not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and loss of openness. Thus, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist. As such, it would be contrary to Policy G2 of the LP and the Framework.

For the above reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework and the very special circumstances test therein, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.