Appeal 6001063

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for construction of single storey rear extension to provide ground floor bedroom / shower room for disabled occupier at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01696/FULL6, 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 nos 3MC/02WD & 3MC/04.

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the proposal. The main issues for which are a) whether it would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; b) its effect on openness of the Green Belt; and c) if the scheme would be inappropriate development, 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 comprises a modest two storey detached dwelling on a modern housing estate close to [site address] Airfield. It is bordered by other similar scaled buildings, and the immediate area is mostly built up save for some public open space to the north, opposite the estate road.

Policy G2 of the London Plan (LP) explains that the Green Belt should be protected from inappropriate development. This is reflected by Policy 49 of the Bromley Local Plan 2019 (BLP). They both set out, as per the Framework, that it should not be permitted unless very special circumstances exist.

The Framework does not set out what is meant by disproportionate for its purposes, although Policy 51 of the BLP, which deals explicitly with extensions to dwellings and follows on from 49’s position on inappropriate development, stipulates that the net increase in floor area over that of the original dwelling should be no more than 10%. The fact this is referred to as being ascertained by an external measurement indicates that floor area for its purposes is land take and not floor space which can occur over multiple storeys. The original building has been extended, at ground floor, to the rear. The Council estimate the total increase, taking into account the previous extension and the one proposed as part of the appeal scheme, to be in the region of 20%. The appellant sets out a higher figure but refers to floor space.

Taking the lower increase, it would exceed Policy 51’s limits by more than a marginal degree. Despite the contextually small extension of the dwelling over the ground floor adjacent the previous as it is shown on the proposed plans, I can draw no further conclusion than, for the purposes of the development plan and the Framework taken together, the appeal scheme would represent disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. It would thus be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

One of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt is its openness which, it has been established, has a visual and spatial aspect. The latter can be taken to mean the absence of built form. Given the modest size of the dwelling and the small size of the extended part into an existing rear patio area within a densely developed and built up housing estate, the effect upon the visual aspect would be very limited. Nevertheless, there is currently no built form where the appeal scheme would be, and the proposal would therefore unavoidably reduce the spatial aspect of the Green Belt’s openness. Whilst the degree of harm to the openness would be very limited, it would nonetheless be so. This would therefore be in further conflict with the position of the Framework and the aims of the aforementioned policies.

The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. Disability is a protected characteristic to which the PSED applies.

The appeal is supported by compellingly specific detail as to why the extension is required for a disabled occupant, and why the care needs of the individual relate specifically to the type, layout and size of the space proposed. The robustness of the justification is emphasised by demonstrating why the additional bedroom needs to be positioned next to an adjoining bathroom and how the space would allow both appropriate facilities for the family member’s needs and allow other family members to have space of their own for their own growth and need. Importantly, the submissions explain why the space, as well as having to be where it is, can’t be provided elsewhere, in another form or the existing configuration of the property.

One could argue that exploration could be made as to a larger building to accommodate the family’s needs elsewhere, but the level of detail set out in the appellant’s evidence strikes me as a reasonable demonstration that the family is well settled, and this would not be feasible. Given the contextually modest size of the proposed extension, I am comfortable that the development would be limited to the space that would be required for their personal circumstances and nothing more.

Other than the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans for certainty. In the interests of the character and appearance of the area, a condition relating to materials to match that of the existing dwelling is also necessary.

There would be harm to the Green Belt by virtue of the appeal scheme being inappropriate development and unacceptably reducing openness. As per the Framework, these would be worthy of substantial weight. For the reasons I have set out above, I would ascribe greater weight to the specific evidenced need for the extension, in the context of its own size and setting. Such that very special circumstances exist. The proposed development would therefore comply with Policies 49 of the BLP and Policy G2 of the LP, the aims of which I have set out above. Material considerations, nor the technical conflict with Policy 51, would indicate otherwise. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed, and planning permission granted, subject to the above mentioned conditions.