Appeal 6002238

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 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 proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • 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.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework sets out that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate other than in a number of specified exceptions including 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. In this context, original building means the dwelling as originally built or as the building existed on 1 July 1948 (whichever is the later).

[name] 1 and 13 of the [site address] District Local Plan Review (1994) (LP) define the extent of the Green Belt and also include an exemption in respect of extensions to houses subject to them not resulting in a building that would be ‘significantly larger’ than as originally constructed. In these respects, they are generally consistent with the Framework.

The Framework does not define disproportionate but the extent of increases in terms of footprint, floorspace or volume are clearly important factors. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance [name] and [name] in the Green Belt (2004) (SPG) suggests parameters to be applied in terms of floorspace and volume when considering extensions to dwellings in the Green Belt. However, the SPG factors in permitted development right provisions at the time the SPG was produced and the parameters indicated largely relate to side and rear extensions. In contrast, the Framework requirements relate to additions more generally and do not refer to any trade off of permitted development rights. Therefore, for the purposes of my assessment what constitutes disproportionate is ultimately a matter of planning judgement.

The evidence suggests that the original building has not previously been extended. There is no dispute that the cumulative extensions proposed would be a 57.73% increase in floorspace. As they would extend a bungalow, the additions would all be provided at ground floor level, significantly increasing the host dwelling’s footprint. In addition, the extensions are also indicated in the evidence to equate to an increase in volume of 242.81m3. To my mind, these factors indicate that the proposed development would result in disproportionate additions over and above the original size of the building and so would not meet the exemption at Paragraph 154 c) of the Framework.

I conclude that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the Framework and [name] 1 and 13 of the LP. The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt.

Paragraph 142 of the Framework sets out that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

Due to their significant footprint and volume, the extensions would undoubtedly have a spatial effect on the openness of the Green Belt. The front elements of the proposed development would be highly visible from the street. Although the rear element would not be very discernible from the street, it would be appreciable from neighbouring properties. Taken together, and taking into account their residential context, the spatial and visual effects of the proposed development would have a modest effect on the openness of the Green Belt.

I conclude, the proposal would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt, thereby conflicting with the aims of including land within the Green Belt when assessed against the Framework.

The appellant has indicated that ‘the rear part’ of the extensions is currently under construction under permitted development rights. I have not been provided with any detailed information to verify that it would be identical to the proposed development before me, for example in the form of a plan or a lawful development certificate. In any case, the appeal expressly seeks planning permission for development that includes more than the rear extension. For the reasons set out, when considered on a cumulative basis, the extensions would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The Framework confirms that its objectives in terms of achieving sustainable development are to be achieved through the application of its policies. This includes those relating to the Green Belt and the conflict identified with the Framework in this regard indicates that the proposed development would not represent sustainable development.

The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful and should only be approved in very special circumstances. I have also found that the proposal would result in some modest harm to openness.

Paragraph 153 of the Framework specifies 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 is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

There are no other considerations presented in this appeal that are sufficient to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Therefore, the very special circumstances that would be needed to justify the proposal do not exist.

For the reasons given the overall conclusion is therefore 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.