Appeal 6001866

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of existing rear extension and proposed two-storey rear extension and side extension at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref25/00892/HHA, subject to the following

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 0001.7 [name] – LOCATION & [name], 0001.1 [name] – GROUND FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED, 0001.2 [name] – FIRST FLOOR PLAN PROPOSED, 0001.3 [name] – ROOF PLAN PROPOSED, 0001.4 [name] – FRONT & [name], 0001.5 [name] – REAR & [name].

The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The appeal site is within the Green Belt. From the Council’s Delegated Report and the appellant's Statement of Case, it would appear that the parties agree that the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. From everything I have seen in the submissions and on my site visit, I have no reason to disagree. On this basis, the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt according to Policy MG02 of the Brentwood Local Plan 2016 – 2033 (the Local Plan) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The main issues are: • The effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; 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 required to justify the proposed development.

The proposed development seeks planning permission for the demolition of the existing single-storey rear extension and the erection of a two-storey rear extension and single-storey side extension. There is no requirement to assess the actual effect on the openness of the Green Belt when determining whether a proposed development meets part c. of paragraph 154 of the Framework in order not to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. However, the effect on openness must be considered for proposed developments that are found to be inappropriate development. As the proposed development would be inappropriate development, I am required to assess its effect on the openness of the Green Belt.

Openness is identified in the Framework as one of the Green Belt’s essential characteristics. It has both spatial and visual aspects. In spatial terms, the proposed development would enlarge the floor area of the house, significantly increasing its overall footprint. Extending the house as proposed would introduce built form into parts of the appeal site that are currently free from development. The volume and massing of the house would be increased, particularly at the first-floor level. Ultimately, this would mean a reduction in spatial openness, albeit to a moderate degree, on account of the scale of the proposed development.

In visual terms, the proposed increase in the size of the house would result in it being more noticeable. However, because the house is fairly well-screened, the effect of the proposed development on the Green Belt’s visual openness would be limited.

For these reasons, I therefore conclude that when the visual and spatial effects of the proposed development are taken together, the effect on openness would be moderate. Nevertheless, this would cause harm to the Green Belt. The proposed development would therefore conflict with Policy MG02 of the Local Plan and the Framework, which collectively seek to protect the openness of the Green Belt.

A certificate of lawful development has been granted by the Council1 for the demolition of the existing rear extension, and the erection of a two-storey rear extension, single storey side extension, front porch and dormer roof extension (the permitted development scheme).

I have no reason to believe that if this appeal fails, there is no real prospect that the permitted development scheme will not be built. Therefore, there is a greater 1 Council Ref: 25/00103/S192 than theoretical possibility that these works will take place and subsequently, the permitted development scheme therefore represents a ‘fallback position’. The degree of weight to be given to the fallback position depends on whether or not it would be equally or more harmful than the proposed development.

The evidence shows that the proposed development would increase the floorspace of the original building by 113.1 sqm, representing a 61.5% uplift. In comparison, the permitted development scheme would increase the floorspace by 121.57 sqm, with a 66% uplift. The permitted development scheme would therefore result in a greater overall increase in floorspace than the proposed development. Although the proposed development would have a slightly greater volume than the permitted development scheme, the difference between them would be minimal.

While the proposed development includes a single-storey rear extension that would project further out than the one in the permitted development scheme, the single-storey side extension proposed is smaller than that in the permitted development scheme. With the proposed development extending further to the rear, and the permitted development scheme extending more to the side, the overall spread and presence of built development would be broadly comparable. While the proposed development would introduce additional bulk and volume to the rear elevation through the two first-floor gable roofs, the permitted development scheme would increase the building’s massing by way of a substantial dormer window at roof level. Although positioned differently, both forms of development would contribute appreciably to the overall bulk of the house.

In my view, for the reasons explained above, I consider that the proposed development would have a comparable effect on the openness of the Green Belt when compared with the permitted development scheme. Accordingly, the level of harm arising from the appeal proposal would be similar to that of the permitted development scheme. I therefore attach considerable weight to the fallback scheme.

I am advised that the proposed development is required to accommodate the appellant's family members who are disabled. The extent of weight given to this consideration is tempered, as it has not been demonstrated that the proposed development is the only available option for meeting their needs. I therefore afford this consideration limited weight.

The development in the [address] 2 case involved only a single‐storey rear extension and is therefore materially different from the appeal proposal. Ultimately, whether a realistic fallback position exists and the degree of weight to be attributed to it is a matter for the decision maker. As such, the Inspector’s findings in that decision attract only limited weight.

The proposed development would be inappropriate development in the terms set out by the Framework. It would also result in a moderate loss of openness of the Green Belt. As required by the Framework, substantial weight is given to this harm. 2 Appeal Ref: APP/H1515/D/22/3300048

Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 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.

Against this harm, I give considerable weight to the fallback permitted development scheme which could be implemented. This would have an equally harmful effect on the Green Belt as the appeal proposal. As such, I find that this other consideration would outweigh the harm identified. Looking at the case as a whole, very special circumstances exist to justify the proposed development.

I have imposed the statutory implementation condition [1], along with a condition listing the approved plans to provide certainty [2]. To protect the character and appearance of the area, a materials condition is also necessary to ensure the external materials of the proposed development match the existing materials [3].

The proposal would conflict with the development plan but the other considerations indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be allowed.