Appeal 6000625

The appeal is dismissed.

The description in the banner heading below is taken from the decision notice, which is the same as the appeal form. This differs from the application form, but more accurately describes the proposal.

The main issues are: • whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), including the effect upon the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of host building and area; and • if the proposal is found to be 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 required to justify the development.

Development within the Green Belt is inappropriate with the exception of the types of development listed in paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework. The exception outlined in paragraph 154 c) relates to 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.

An assessment of whether a proposal would amount to a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building is a matter of planning judgement. The appellant refers to a guideline increase of 50% over the original footprint of the dwelling. However, this is not cited in the Development Plan policies before me and the Framework does not provide a definition of ‘disproportionate additions’.

The submitted evidence confirms that the appeal building has previously been extended. The proposed extensions would represent a significant increase to the scale and mass of the building. Taken together, the previous extension, plus the proposed extensions would result in an increase which I find to be disproportionate over and above the size of the original building. The appeal proposal therefore does not meet the exception in paragraph 154 c) of the Framework.

Reference is made to the floorspace increase being similar to another nearby property, known as The Firs, which has been granted planning permission for extensions. However, I have not been provided with the location, full plans and details of that application. Therefore, I cannot make a direct and reasoned comparison between that scheme and the appeal proposal, such as in respect of the visual effect of the additions. From what is provided, in particular, I note reference to those additions not being viewed as dominant additions, so it appears to differ to the effects of this appeal scheme. Overall, the limited evidence does not justify me finding this proposal is not inappropriate development, which I have considered on its own merits.

Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt that has spatial as well as visual aspects. Notwithstanding the neighbouring dwelling or the other properties within the vicinity of the appeal site, the openness of the Green Belt is clearly evident around the property and the wider area. The appeal property is visible from [site address] and so would the front extension. The proposed rear extension would not be readily visible from the public highway due to the presence of mature trees and vegetation, although the density of this screening may be reduced in winter months when deciduous trees shed their leaves. The proposal would therefore have a moderate effect on the visual openness of the Green Belt.

Overall, the proposal would increase the volume and massing of the existing building and in doing so would result in a loss of openness, albeit this would be limited. The proposal would, therefore, also have a limited impact on the spatial openness of the Green Belt. Nevertheless, this factor weighs somewhat against the proposal.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The proposal would also result in a loss of openness in the Green Belt. It would therefore conflict with paragraph 153 of the Framework which states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt.

The site is in a rural area where there is dispersed built development. The appeal dwelling is one of a pair of two storey houses situated to the north of [site address] . The properties are symmetrically arranged and separated by single-storey, flat-roofed garages. Although both dwellings have been altered, they retain a broadly similar appearance and overall balance. They have a comparable layout and massing, featuring forward-projecting gables and similar fenestration arrangements to their front elevations, which is a discernible and notable characteristic of their existing visual appearance.

Although the appeal dwelling and its neighbour might have a more utilitarian design and appearance than the others nearby, it is not incongruous in the context of this rural setting. Furthermore, and notwithstanding the appellant’s assertion that the two dwellings are of little architectural merit, their current symmetrical appearance complements each other and does contribute positively to the character and appearance of this part of [site address] .

The South Worcestershire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2018 (SPD) acknowledges that size alone may not determine an extension’s impact, as a number of design elements, which are set out in Note 1 of the SPD, also need to be considered. However, the proposed extensions would represent a very significant increase to the size and scale of the existing dwelling.

The proposed extensions would extend beyond the dwelling’s existing building lines to the front and to the western side to an extent which would distort the proportions of the existing dwelling. Moreover, the proposal does not incorporate any step downs from the existing dwelling or other design breaks to demonstrate a break between the existing dwelling and the proposed extensions. As such the extensions would not appear subservient and would instead significantly dominate the host dwelling.

Although the proposed extensions incorporate pitched rooflines to complement the existing dwelling, the uneven projection of these rooflines would further disrupt the proportions and overall balance of, and between, the host and neighbouring dwellings. The alterations would result in the appeal dwelling having an appearance quite different from its neighbouring pair, significantly diminishing their balance and symmetry. This would further emphasise the discordant appearance of the appeal dwelling and harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The fenestration would introduce windows with a slimmer more contemporary profile compared to the existing units, some of which would be retained, resulting in a lack of visual coherence across the dwelling. Furthermore, the variation in the arrangement and proportions of the openings, particularly on the front elevation, would result in a visually uneven and discordant appearance. This would be clearly harmful to the character and appearance of the host building. Even were I to have been persuaded the harm may have been overcome by suitably worded planning conditions, this could not overcome the other harm I have found.

The appellant asserts that there is a precedent for housing design which incorporates differently proportioned windows, however, this point has not been further evidenced. Moreover, based upon what I saw of the visual context of the appeal site, I cannot conclude it represents a strong or positive characteristic of the area. Therefore, this consideration does not lead me to an alternative conclusion on this matter.

The proposal would be at odds with several of the design considerations set out in the SPD. Whilst the appellant considers this is aimed at extensions in urban areas, the SPD does not make this distinction. Based on what I saw and the evidence before me, I do not consider there is justification to depart from the design approach advocated in the SPD.

The Council raises no objection to the proposed access ramp, realignment of the retaining wall and extension to the patio. Based on the evidence before me, including the observations I made on site, I find no reason to conclude otherwise.

Nevertheless, for the reasons set out above, I find that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. It would therefore conflict with South Worcestershire Development Plan (2016) Policy SWDP21, which seeks to secure high quality development which is in-keeping with the character of the site and the character, scale and massing of the host dwelling.

The proposal offers modest benefits in terms of water management and biodiversity, to which I afford limited weight in support of the appeal scheme.

It is stated that the proposals are to provide an improved living environment, address the functional needs of the appellant’s family and to ensure that the property remains a sustainable family dwelling for the long-term. This would largely be a private benefit and therefore attracts limited weight in favour of the appeal.

The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and it would harm openness, to which the Framework requires me to attach substantial weight. Furthermore, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area, which attracts significant weight against the appeal scheme.

The benefits advanced by the appellant attract limited weight in favour of the appeal scheme. They do not clearly outweigh the harm identified to the Green Belt, and the harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify a grant of planning permission.

The proposed development is contrary to the development plan read as a whole, and the National Planning Policy Framework read as a whole, and there are no considerations advanced, including the policies of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed.