Appeal 6001653

The appeal is dismissed.

As the appeal site forms part of the setting of a listed building, I have had special regard to section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; and, • if the proposal is inappropriate development, would the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, be clearly outweighed by other considerations as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the development.

The appeal property is a modern, detached dwelling which is located within the Green Belt. It is two storeys high, with a single storey flat roof projection. There is a detached outbuilding between the dwelling and the highway. I observed on my site visit that there was a light-weight structure adjacent to the east elevation of the dwelling, which was being used for storage. There was another detached outbuilding a short distance away from this structure. The appeal site is bounded by agricultural land and the highway. On the opposite side of the road is a churchyard.

The appeal property lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Substantial weight should be given to any harm, and 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 Framework states that development within the Green Belt is inappropriate, unless it falls within one of the listed exceptions. Both main parties confirm that the exception set out at paragraph 154 c) of the Framework is applicable to this appeal. This exception 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.’

Policy DM17 of the Rochford District Council Development Management Plan, adopted December 2014 (the DMP) provides criteria for assessing proportionality. It states that extensions to dwellings in the Green Belt will be considered favourably provided that the proposal would result in no more than a 25% increase in internal floorspace when compared to the original dwelling.

Planning consent was granted for a single storey projection to the dwelling, which has been implemented (Ref: 21/01014/FUL). The Council advises that this resulted in an increase of around 24%, when compared to the floorspace of the original dwelling.

The appeal scheme seeks planning permission for another single storey projection to the property. The Council states that the proposal would increase the dwelling by a further 47.[address] metres, which when combined with the previously consented extension would increase the floorspace of the original dwelling by approximately 68%. The appellant argues that gross external floorspace (GEA) is a more appropriate metric for assessing development within the Green Belt because in their view, it measures the physical bulk, mass and spatial impact of the development. The appellant argues that the proposal would result in a 61.2% increase in GEA and a 64.7% increase in gross internal floorspace, when compared to the size of the original dwelling.

Regardless of whether the Council or appellant’s figures are used and even when taking the lower GEA calculation, the proposal in combination with the previously approved extension would significantly increase the size of the original dwelling above the 25% threshold set out in the DMP.

I appreciate that floor space is not the sole determining factor when assessing or measuring proportionality. The Framework refers to ‘size’ in relation to the original building, which can reasonably be interpreted to include volume, height, external dimensions, footprint or floorspace. The proposed extension would be subservient in terms of its height when compared to the original dwelling. Nevertheless, in combination with the existing extension, the proposal would result in a significant increase in footprint, floorspace and volume over and above the size of the original dwelling.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal in combination with the existing extension would result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original dwelling. As a result, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The proposal would conflict with Policy DM17 of the DMP, which requires that extensions to dwellings in the Green Belt result in no more than a 25% increase in internal floorspace of the original dwelling. The proposal would also conflict with paragraph 154 c) of the Framework, which requires that extensions to dwellings within the Green Belt do not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt that has visual as well as spatial aspects. The proposed extension would be single storey in height and would have a flat roof and would be largely screened from the public realm by the existing hedge and fence. Given the size, design and siting of the proposal any loss of visual openness would be limited. However, the proposal by reason of its additional built form, size and massing would result in a loss of spatial openness to the Green Belt.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would result in a harmful loss of openness to the Green Belt; albeit this harm would be limited given the scale of the proposal. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy set out in the Framework, which is to keep land permanently open.

The Council granted a lawful development certificate (LDC) for a detached building within the curtilage of the dwelling, which would provide a gym and a home office (Ref: 25/00347/LDC). The LDC scheme has yet to be implemented but it represents the fallback position. The appeal scheme would also provide a gym and home office, but would be physically attached to the dwelling.

In this case, I find that there is a real prospect of the LDC scheme being implemented. However, the LDC scheme is materially different to the appeal scheme before me because it was for an outbuilding, as opposed to an extension to a dwelling and was of a different design. The LDC scheme also did not require an assessment against local or national planning policies. I appreciate that the proposal would have a lower roof height when compared to the fallback scheme, which helps to reduce its visual impact from the public realm. Furthermore, it would not increase the spatial envelope of built form on the site any further than the fallback scheme. Nonetheless, I do not find the consolidated form of the proposal reduces the perception of encroachment compared to a separate outbuilding and find no benefit in this regard.

The appellant argues that the proposal would have energy efficiency benefits, when compared to a dispersed ancillary building. However, any energy efficiency benefits have not been quantified. Nevertheless, any such benefits are likely to be fairly small-scale and would therefore only have a limited environmental benefit.

The proposal would result in a modest increase in volume (7.5%) and floorspace (15.[address] metres) compared to the fallback scheme. However, even when discounting the fallback scheme, the proposal in combination with the existing extension would result in a 35.7% increase in GEA and 42.7% increase in GIA compared to the size of the original dwelling. In this case, the increase in floorspace, footprint and volume would all be greater than the fallback scheme. While the impact on visual openness from the public realm may be slightly reduced by the lower roof height, this is negated by the greater loss of spatial openness as a result of the increase in volume, footprint and floorspace. Overall, I give the LDC scheme moderate weight in my decision.

The appeal site lies opposite the Church of [name] the Virgin (Ref: 1322323), which is a [name]* listed building. The church dates back to the 14th century and is constructed of stone rubble. It has a weatherboarded bell turret, shingle spire and plain tiled roof. Based on the evidence before me and my site visit, I find that the special interest of the church is derived from its historic and architectural interests as an illustration of ecclesiastical architecture from the 14th century. The church’s distinctive spire and bell turret and the presence of traditional materials contribute towards its special interest.

The building’s special interest stems, in part, from its setting, including its churchyard and the surrounding agricultural land. The verdant and open nature of the surrounding landscape make a positive contribution to the special interest of the heritage asset and reinforce its status as a [name]* listed building.

The proposed extension would be sited on the opposite side of the dwelling from the church. Given the single storey nature of the extension, its siting and the existing screening, I find that the proposal would not affect the special interest of the listed building. Consequently, the setting of the listed building would be preserved.

I appreciate that no objections were raised to the appeal scheme by the Council’s Heritage Consultant or the Parish Council. However, this does not alter my overall findings.

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. The proposal would also cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The Framework is clear that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Overall, I afford the other considerations advanced in this case moderate weight in favour of the development. Accordingly, very special circumstances do not exist that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and harm to openness.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other material considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh that conflict. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.