Appeal 6001384

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey rear extension to provide additional living accommodation at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02429/FUL, 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 no’s: PL03 (proposed floor plan), PL04 [name] (proposed elevations), and PL06 [name] (existing and proposed site plans).

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 statement of appeal references the submission of two additional plans at appeal stage. Drawing PL04 [name] (proposed elevations) removes a previously depicted front porch that was included in error and drawing PL06 [name] (existing and proposed site plans) has added a hatched area to denote the proposed development. Given that the front porch was previously only depicted on one of the proposed plans and it is clear from the description of development what the proposal pertains to, I do not believe that any party would be prejudiced by my acceptance of these revised drawings.

The main issues are: i) 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; ii) the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and iii) whether any harm by reasons 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.

Policy CP8 of the Bath and North East Somerset Local Plan – [name] (2014) confirms the openness of the Green Belt will be protected from inappropriate development in accordance with national planning policy. In that regard, Paragraph 154 of the Framework outlines that development in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, save for a number of exceptions. One such exception 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.

Policies GB1 of the Council’s Placemaking Plan (2017) and GB3 of the Council’s Core Strategy and Placemaking Plan incorporating the Local Plan Partial Update (2023) are generally consistent with the Framework insofar as they seek proposals that should not prejudice the Green Belt and that extensions will only be permitted where they are not disproportionate.

The meaning of ‘disproportionate additions’ is not defined within the Framework. The Council’s ‘[name] in the Green Belt – Supplementary Planning Document’ (2008) (SPD) indicates that whether an addition is disproportionate depends on the site, the dwelling and the nature of the proposed extension. I agree, and therefore whilst the SPD indicates that in many circumstances a well-designed extension resulting in a volume increase of about a third of the original dwelling would be more likely to be acceptable, there are also likely to be other considerations in terms of the merits of any particular case. Typically, this may include factors such as footprint, floorspace and site-specific context for example. In the absence of a definitive description in the development plan policies of the Framework, what may be disproportionate is therefore a matter of planning judgement.

The appeal dwelling has not previously been extended. The Council suggests that the proposal would represent a volume increase of approximately 60%. Whilst that would be more than a third of the volume of the original building, its provision over two floors would limit the extent of the extension’s footprint. This would ensure that the addition would not exceed 50% of the depth of the host dwelling and would sit in line with the recently completed extension to the adjoining semi at 1 Culverhay, squaring off the semi-detached pair. In addition, the roof of the extension would be set down at ridge level. Taking these site-specific factors into account, the extension would not be a disproportionate addition over and above the original size of the building.

Consequently, the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and the relevant development plan policies.

In meeting the relevant exception at Paragraph 154 c) of the Framework, openness is implicitly taken into account. It is therefore not necessary to consider the second or third main issues.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, it is also necessary to specify the approved drawings which in this case includes the revisions set out under the preliminary matter. These conditions are necessary in the interests of certainty and precision.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I 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.