Appeal 6002326

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: i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies; ii) the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and iii) if the proposal would be inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to very special circumstances necessary to justify it.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within a given list of exceptions. One such exception is 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. Policy CS.10 of the Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy (CS) (2016) is generally consistent with the Framework requiring that any extensions should be small scale and that inappropriate development in the Green Belt should be resisted, except in cases where very special circumstances are justified in accordance with the provisions of national policy.

The meaning of ‘disproportionate additions’ is not defined within the Framework or the CS. As such, whether a proposal would amount to disproportionate additions is a matter of planning judgement. The appellant indicates that the proposal would result in an increase in volume of approximately 80% over the original dwelling. Consequently, this would not be small scale and it would also significantly add to the footprint and floor space of the dwelling relative to the size of the original building. This represents a substantial increase and would amount to a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building, failing to meet the exemption at paragraph 154(c) of the Framework.

Consequently, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and the relevant development plan policy.

Paragraph 142 of the Framework sets out the essential characteristics of Green Belts, which are their openness and permanence. It has been held in the [address] that openness is epitomised by the lack of buildings or development, with both visual and spatial aspects.

As a result of the dwelling’s increased bulk, mass and footprint, the proposed extensions would undoubtedly have a spatial effect. Due to its two-storey height, the side extension would be visible from the street on [address], although the host dwelling’s position at the end of the row of properties to this side of [address], together with the heavy vegetation to the side of the site would limit views for those travelling along [address] from the direction of Valley Road. Nonetheless, the main bulk of the extension would be positioned to the rear of the dwelling which would be visible from various points on the towpath which runs around [name], particularly on the section that runs alongside the rear boundary of the appeal property.

In the context of a domestic extension and when the spatial and visual factors are considered together, the proposal would have a modest effect on the openness of the Green Belt. In this regard, it would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt, thereby conflicting with the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy as confirmed by the Framework.

The appellant suggests that a similar single storey rear extension could be constructed under a prior approval application. However, this would be materially different to what is proposed, and while it may also reduce openness, any effects would be confined to the ground floor level in that instance. There is therefore nothing to suggest that there would be the same visual and spatial effects, including in terms of the significant increase in volume that would result from the more substantial proposals before me. Even if the extent of the extensions have been reduced in size from that originally proposed, and the scheme is the minimum the applicant desires from a functional perspective, those factors do not justify the identified harm to the Green Belt. I therefore afford these considerations only limited weight.

With regards to the suggestion that the proposal would not conflict with the five purposes of the Green Belt, the Framework is clear that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it meets the specified exceptions. Furthermore, it would not constitute development of grey belt land as such development would need to meet all the criteria at paragraph 155 of the Framework and the appellant’s desire for a larger home is not ‘a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed’.

I have found that the development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt to which I attach substantial weight. The Framework states that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should only be approved in very special circumstances.

As part of the assessment, I have also found that the development would result in a modest effect on the openness of the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. This is a high hurdle for a development proposal to overcome.

The other considerations put forward in favour of the proposal carry no more than limited weight.

In conclusion and on balance, the substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm, in addition to the other harm identified is not clearly outweighed by other considerations and therefore the very special circumstances needed to justify the proposed development do not exist.

For the reasons given, I therefore recommend that the appeal be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.