Appeal 6001885

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 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 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 necessary to justify the proposal.

The Framework outlines that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt subject to a number of exceptions. One of the exceptions is Paragraph 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 glossary in the Framework is clear that ‘original building’ means ‘a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after that date, as it was built originally’.

Policy GP2 of the Rugby Borough Council Local Plan 2011-2031 (2019) (LP) is consistent with the Framework in terms of resisting new development in the Green Belt, other than where it would accord with the exception criteria set out in national policy.

The Framework does not define disproportionate. However, the Council’s Climate Change and [name] and Construction Supplementary Planning Document (2023) (SPD) sets out that the measure of disproportionality will typically be around a quarter of the volume of the original dwelling. In the absence of any alternative definition, this measure is pertinent to my assessment.

It is undisputed between the main parties that the appeal property has been subject to various alterations and extensions over time and that the total volume of the building prior to these additions was 462.89 cubic metres. It is also common ground that the total volume of the dwelling, as a result of previous additions combined with what is now proposed, would equate to 717.03 cubic metres. Even accounting for the modest scale of the extension proposed, this equates to a substantial cumulative increase in volume of 54.9%. This would also considerably exceed the ‘quarter of the volume’ measure indicated in the SPD. On this basis, the proposed development would contribute to disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

I accept that the existing utility that would be replaced was built in 1982 and is not therefore a recent addition to the property. Even so, it was not an original part of the building for the purposes of the Framework. Furthermore, the proposed development is also larger than the utility extension it would replace, thereby increasing the cumulative extensions beyond the existing situation. Therefore, this matter does not alter my finding.

The proposal would therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, contrary to LP Policy GP2 and the Framework.

The Framework sets out that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; with the essential characteristics of Green Belts being their openness and their permanence.

The proposal would have a slightly larger footprint and increased mass including a higher roof relative to the extension it would replace and so in spatial terms would encroach upon openness to a small extent beyond the existing situation. The location of the extension to the rear of the host dwelling, which is well screened from public vantage points, would also limit its visual effect. Taking the spatial and visual effects together, there would be a modest effect on the openness of the Green Belt.

I acknowledge that the replacement extension would provide a larger, more functional space for its occupiers. This would be private benefit for a single household. I also do not doubt the appellant’s commitment to using sustainable construction methods. However, given the scale of what is proposed, any such benefits would be small in magnitude, carrying limited weight.

There is no substantive evidence before me regarding the current energy credentials of the appeal dwelling and to what extent this would be improved by the appeal scheme. It has also not been demonstrated that any uplift in this regard could not be delivered through interventions that do not conflict with national and local Green Belt policy.

Even if the design and proposed white render materials would acceptably respond to the architecture of the host dwelling, and appropriate materials could be secured by condition, character and appearance matters are separate to the Green Belt assessment. In any case, the design is not such that it would result in any tangible improvement to the character or appearance of the area.

I acknowledge that the appeal scheme represents a second iteration of the proposed extension. However, a revised scheme does not necessarily equate to one that is acceptable in planning terms. [name] also note the alleged issues regarding communication during the course of the planning application, this this is not a matter which alters my own assessment of the planning merits of the proposed development.

The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. As part of the assessment, I have also found that the proposal would result in some modest harm to openness. The substantial weight I must apply to the harm to the Green Belt, including to its openness, would not be clearly outweighed by the other considerations. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

The proposal would be contrary to the development plan and the Framework. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I 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.