Appeal 6001349

The appeal is dismissed.

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 appeal.

The description of development in the banner heading is taken from the planning application form. I have considered the appeal on the basis of the revised scheme that was before the Council when it determined the application, which included the introduction of an additional extension linking the house and the outbuilding.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including whether it would preserve the setting of the nearby [name] listed building ( [site address] ); 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 necessary to justify the proposal.

Policy DS18 of the Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2029 (2017) (LP) confirms that the Council will apply national policy to proposals within the Green Belt. In that regard, the Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It confirms that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate other that in certain exceptions as set out in paragraph 154. One of the exceptions is 154(c) 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.

The term ‘disproportionate’ is not defined in the Framework. The supporting text to LP Policy H14 confirms amongst other things that it is not possible to define what is considered to be a disproportionate addition as this will be dependent upon various factors including the scale, design and character of the dwelling and any extensions and that each case will need to be considered on its merits. I agree, and whilst this policy indicates that, as a guide, additions in the Green Belt that represent an increase of more than 30% in gross floorspace are likely to be considered disproportionate, there may be other indicators which are pertinent to an assessment. For example, the scale, footprint, massing and volume of extensions are well established as potential factors which may indicate whether or not an addition would be disproportionate. Therefore, it is ultimately a matter of planning judgement.

The floorspace figures presented by the appellant are not disputed by the Council, and it is agreed between the parties that the combined gross external area (GEA) of the house and outbuilding equates to 766.[address] metres (sqm), with the total footprint being 309.63 sqm. It is also agreed that the development proposed would equate to 212.8 sqm, comprising of a 174.7 sqm extension to the outbuilding; a 15.9 sqm loggia; and a 22.2 sqm building linking the house and outbuilding.

The dispute in this case lies in how the proposed increase over and above the size of the ‘original building’ should be calculated, and more specifically whether the existing outbuilding should be included within that figure.

LP Policy H14 excludes detached buildings in the assessment of the ‘original dwelling’ for the purposes of paragraph 154(c) of the Framework. The Council therefore contends that the outbuilding should not contribute to the existing floorspace. However, case law has established that an existing detached domestic outbuilding may be regarded as part of the dwelling and that an extension to such an outbuilding may, in the right circumstances, be considered an extension to the house.

I have considered the judgment in [name] v SSLUHC, [name] and [name] [2022] EWHC 2145 (Admin), cited by the appellant. Given the outbuilding’s close proximity to the house, its subservient appearance to it, and its incidental use as a garage and annex, I find it reasonable in this instance to treat the house and outbuilding as forming the ‘original building’ for the purposes of my assessment.

Based on the agreed figures, the appeal scheme would result in an 27.8% increase in gross floorspace. This would only be slightly below the maximum increase in gross floorspace suggested in the supporting text to LP Policy H14. Furthermore, the extensions would wrap around the garage and link the outbuilding and the house at ground floor level. Consequently, they would occupy a substantial part of the plot, with the ‘leisure extension’ and garage combining to have a footprint comparable to that of the main house. Moreover, using the footprint figures provided by the appellant, the totality of extensions proposed would amount to a very considerable 68.7% increase in footprint.

I acknowledge that the link building was introduced during the application process as the appellant sought to demonstrate the functional relationship between the outbuilding and the main house. Even if I was to consider the proposal on the basis of the original scheme, without the link building, the additions would still amount to a very substantial 61.6% increase in footprint. Therefore, whether I consider the development on the basis of the original scheme or the revised scheme with the link extension, the floorspace and footprint increases indicate that the proposed development would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

Consequently, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, contrary to the Framework and LP policies DS18 and H14.

The Framework states that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence. It has been held in the [address] that openness is epitomised by the lack of buildings or development, with both visual and spatial aspects.

[name] consider the proposal on the basis of the original scheme or the revised scheme with link extension, the mass, volume and footprint of extensions would undoubtedly have a spatial effect, significantly increasing the built form on the site. In either case the additions would be perceptible in views from within the estate itself, most notably through the appeal site’s vehicular gate, in long-distance views across the open fields to the north and, even accounting for the high boundary wall would also likely be discernible from upper floor windows and terraces at [site address] .

Taking the spatial and visual effects together, the proposed development would have a moderate effect on the openness of the Green Belt.

[site address] is a large, detached dwelling set within an extensive plot. The appeal site comprises a generous landscaped garden, driveway and parking area, together with a detached two storey, triple garage with a ‘granny’ annex above. The front of the appeal site is enclosed by a stone wall with a gated vehicular entrance and a separate pedestrian access. The remainder of the garden is bounded by a picket fence that affords wide, open views across the surrounding countryside.

The appeal site is accessed via a private drive within the extensive landscaped grounds of [site address] and occupies a prominent position, close to the Manor, at the northern edge of the estate. [site address] is a recently constructed dwelling. Although substantial in size, the overall scale of the appeal dwelling ensures that it reads as subservient to [site address] . Owing to its coherent design and materials, relative proportions to [site address] , generous garden setting and prominent position within the estate, the appeal site responds positively to the character and appearance of its immediate surroundings.

[site address] is [name] listed. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and [name]) Act 1990 requires that special regard is given to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting. The Framework also requires that great weight be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets. This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.

The list description for [site address] (Ref. 1035207) describes the property as a large mansion, built in 1875, in Gothic and Elizabethan styles. It displays rock-faced stone with plain tile roofs, picturesque asymmetrical composition with gables, pierced parapet, stone mullion windows and canted bays. It has a pedimented gable with volutes. The salient feature is a large central tower with a circular stair turret and porte cochere, with moulded arches and oriel. There is a smaller embattled tower at the north end.

Based on the evidence before me, including the list description, and my own observations, I consider that the significance of the listed building, derives largely from its age and architectural detail, its imposing presence and the spatial relationship it enjoys with the surrounding landscape. Open areas within the appeal site and wider estate, together with footpaths and formal planting, contribute to the overall spatial character. [address]’s setting is therefore informed by the combination of its historic character, its wider landscaped surroundings and the subservience of other buildings in its vicinity.

The Council raised no objection to the proposed loggia in terms of its effect on the character and appearance of the area or on the setting of [site address] . Given its discreet siting, limited scale and sympathetic design, I agree with that assessment.

The proposed extensions would take cues from the architectural detailing of the host dwelling, and in turn, that of [site address] . Even so, the combined effect of the wraparound extension and the link building, although single storey, would create a substantial and visually continuous built form. This would cause the house and garage to read as a single enlarged dwelling rather than as a principal house with a clearly detached and subservient outbuilding. The resulting massing would be considerable and would unacceptably diminish [site address] ’s subordinate relationship to [site address] .

I acknowledge that [site address] displays flat roofed sections which, according to the appellant’s statement, amount to 32% coverage of the roof. Even so, these are broken into relatively small areas across the building. By contrast, the appeal scheme would result in an expansive and largely uninterrupted flat roof. Its single storey scale and elongated, horizontal emphasis would also give the extension a sprawling and distinctly box like appearance. This would unacceptably diminish the spacious qualities of the plot and would be discordant when viewed against the more compact forms and respective scale of the existing dwelling and garage. This would be the case even if the appeal was to be considered on the basis of the original scheme with no link extension.

Given the prominent position of [site address] on the approach to [site address] , the proposal would draw the eye and would detract from the setting of the listed building, where spaciousness, the hierarchy of buildings and architectural cohesion form key elements of its significance.

Having regard to the requirements of Framework, I find that the proposal would not preserve the setting of [site address] and that the harm would be at a moderate level of less than substantial harm. The Framework states that where a development would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal.

There would be a private benefit for occupiers of the host property through the provision of additional living space. The restoration of [site address] and the improvements to the wider estate have already been realised and there is nothing to suggest that those benefits are directly related to the appeal scheme. Overall, I find that there are not public benefits before me of a sufficient weight to outweigh the identified harm in this instance being mindful of the great weight I must apply to the asset’s conservation.

Consequently, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and would fail to preserve the setting of [site address] . It would therefore conflict with policies BE1 and HE1 of the LP insofar as they require new development to positively contribute to the character and quality of its environment through good layout and design, to reflect, respect and reinforce local architectural and historical distinctiveness; and for less than substantial harm to a heritage asset to be outweighed by public benefits. For the same reasons, it would also be inconsistent with the design principles contained in the SPD, as well as the good design and heritage aims of the Framework.

I acknowledge the desire of the appellant to improve the accommodation at the property. However, this would be a private benefit for a single household. The appellant has also suggested they would be agreeable to a legal agreement confirming that no further extension applications would be made in the event that planning permission was to be granted for the proposed development. However, no such agreement is before me, and this would not in any case overcome the specific harms identified in respect of the appeal proposals. It is conjecture to suggest that a larger extension on the main house and smaller extension on the garage would have been considered acceptable by the Council as this would need to be assessed on its own merits. These matters therefore attract limited weight.

I also accept that [site address] and the wider estate is home to multiple families and that a previous planning permission saw the restoration of a [name] listed building and its setting. However, there is no substantive evidence to suggest that this was reliant on the proposed development at [site address] and so this also attracts limited weight.

The appellant has made reference to a previous planning permission for the development of two houses on the appeal site. While it might be comparable in floorspace to the appeal scheme, it is materially different in form and design. It also predates the adoption of the Council’s current LP. I therefore afford this matter limited weight.

The appellant has raised concerns in respect of the Council’s handling of the planning application and suggests they received mixed advice and that design concerns were never raised. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to suggest that proper planning procedures were not carried out. In any event, such matters do not prevent me from making my own assessment on the planning merits of the appeal proposal.

The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should only be approved in very special circumstances. As part of the assessment, I have also found that the proposal would result in moderate harm to openness. Furthermore, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area and would fail to preserve the setting of [site address] .

The Framework requires that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness and that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The other considerations put forward only carry limited weight and so do not clearly outweigh the harm identified. As such, the very special circumstances required to justify the proposed development do not exist.

For the reasons given, I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.