Appeal 6002314

The appeal is dismissed.

I have used the description of development on the decision notice in the banner heading above as this more accurately describes the proposal. Furthermore, the appellant did not disagree to the change by the Council.

Prior to determination, the Council sought the withdrawal of the application, which was for householder development, and its resubmission as a full application on the basis that it was for replacement rather than extension of the dwelling.

This is reflected in one of the Council’s reasons for refusal. However, whilst there are differences in the processes, I am satisfied that it would not prejudice any party if were to deal with the appeal using the householder process.

Therefore, the main issues are: • whether the 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; and • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It goes on to state that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The Framework further establishes that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, subject to exceptions set out in paragraph 154.

These include “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 replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces” and “... the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land ... which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt”.

The further exception at paragraph 155 requires that non-major development be on grey belt land, not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan, be of a type for which the there is an unmet need and be in a sustainable location.

Policy GBR1 ‘Green Belt’ of the East Herts District Plan 2018 states that planning applications within the Green Belt will be considered in line with the provisions of the Framework. Whilst the Council disputes whether the proposal is an extension rather than a rebuild, the tests for both exceptions are similar, comparing original and proposed size. Neither depends upon the proposal’s effect on openness or consistency with the purposes of including the land in the Green Belt.

Whilst the result of a simple arithmetic comparison of the footprint and volume including the garage might be considered proportionate, I am not convinced that this alone is the most useful metric, not least because the tests refer to a singular building. Much of the additional volume is bulky and at height and, in this context, the increase in size would be significant, such that the proposal should not in my view qualify for the exception based on extension or replacement.

I am satisfied that, as the site is located outside of a built-up area, at least the part of the site that the house is located on is previously developed within the definition at Annex 2 of the Framework. Whilst the submitted landscape and visual impact assessment assessed a smaller building, it demonstrates that the site is relatively enclosed, so that the harm to the openness of the Green Belt could not be said to be substantial and the proposal is therefore not inappropriate.

The site comprises a chalet style bungalow in red brick with a red clay tiled roof containing a large dormer to the northern slope and a smaller one to the southern slope, set within a large plot containing single storey outbuildings. Whilst the larger dormer compromises the original roof, the bungalow retains much of its form and I do not agree that it is without any architectural merit.

The wider area is sporadically developed countryside, with several cottages and larger houses of various styles and ages further along the narrow lane from which the site is accessed. Most are one- or two-storey with traditional dual pitched roofs.

Whilst there is dispute as to the extent of the proposed demolition, the proposal would effectively replace the bungalow with a much bulkier house, the roof of which would incorporate a flat central area. The increased massing that would result from this roof form would be visible from the lane and surrounding countryside, including public rights of way. This, together with the bays, windows and portico would be poorly proportioned and without precedent nearby.

Overall, the effect would be to create a building with an unusual appearance that would adversely affect the character of the area. This would be contrary to Policies DES4, HOU11 and VILL3 of the East Herts District Plan 2018, which seek a high standard of design, with extensions and alterations appropriate to the character, appearance and setting of existing dwellings and development in keeping with the character of the village. I attach significant weight to these policy conflicts.

I attach only modest weight to the possibility that outbuildings may be built across the site because of the enclosed nature of the site and the limited extent to which they would meet a similar need. I attach moderate weight to the possibility that an additional storey might be built, since this would be more visible than the appeal proposal. Nonetheless, the additional storey would be in a style similar to that of the existing house and, whilst unusual, would not be as harmful.

I have found that the proposal is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, consequently, very special circumstances are not required to clearly outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt.

Nonetheless, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area, and this harm is not outweighed by the possibility that outbuildings or an additional storey may be built if the appeal fails.

For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.