Appeal 6002435

The appeal is dismissed.

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 the development plan; and • if it would be inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations amounting to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

The appeal site lies in the Green Belt. Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate other than in specific exceptional circumstances. Paragraph 154.c) of the Framework provides one of these exceptions, for 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 LPD05 of the [site address] Borough Local Plan up to 2037 (the LP) reflects this approach, setting out a general guideline that extensions in the Green Belt should not exceed 30% of the original building when considered individually or cumulatively.

In this case, the Council has undertaken a detailed assessment of the volume of the original dwelling, the cumulative volume of existing extensions, and the additional volume created by the appeal proposal. The appellant has not submitted any substantive evidence to challenge or contradict those calculations, and on the evidence before me I have no reason to dispute those figures.

It is therefore undisputed that the host dwelling has already been extended well beyond the 30% guideline referred to in Policy LPD05, and that the proposal would add further built form to a dwelling which has already undergone extensive enlargement. In these circumstances, the proposal would exacerbate an already significant increase from the size of the original building.

The appellant’s case places considerable emphasis on the visual effects of the proposal. However, in determining whether development is inappropriate under paragraph 154.c) of the Framework, the principal consideration is whether the proposal would amount to a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. This is not primarily a test of visual or openness impacts.

The appeal proposal would introduce a new balcony and canopy structure projecting from the dwelling, supported by posts and incorporating a roofed element. Although it would not be enclosed, the development would create additional volume and built form when considered cumulatively with the existing extensions. Given the extent to which the original dwelling has already been enlarged, I am not persuaded that this further addition can reasonably be regarded as anything other than a disproportionate addition. Moreover, none of the other exceptions listed under paragraph 154 would apply to the proposal.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not fall within any of the exceptions in paragraph 154 of the Framework and it would conflict with LP Policy LPD05, the aims of which have previously been set out. It would therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Paragraph 153 of the Framework states that substantial weight must be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Such circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The appellant has advanced personal circumstances, specifically that the proposal is intended to benefit the specific needs of an occupier. [name] acknowledge the importance of these matters and I have given them careful consideration, only limited supporting evidence has been submitted to demonstrate the specific functional need for the appeal proposal in the form proposed. Although the appellant has suggested that amendments could be made to reduce harm, I must determine the appeal on the plans before me and on which the planning application was determined, which do not include those amendments. Taking these factors together, whilst the personal circumstances attract some weight, that weight is limited in the planning balance.

The appellant’s argument concerning visual impact primarily seeks to reduce the perceived visual effects of the development. However, as set out above, harm by reason of inappropriateness exists because of the development’s size and the cumulative volume of the existing extensions at the property, irrespective of detailed design.

Furthermore, I do not fully concur with the appellant’s assessment of the visual effects. Whilst intervisibility from the windows of the adjoining property would be limited, the development would nonetheless remain visibly prominent from the garden area of the adjoining property. It would also be perceptible in longer views from the north, including from the A580 [address], albeit at a greater distance. Consequently, the proposal would introduce additional visual presence within the Green Belt, reinforcing rather than negating the identified harm. In any event, even if visual impacts were limited, this would amount at best to a neutral consideration and would not outweigh, or overcome, the harm previously identified through inappropriateness.

I have also had regard to the appellant’s rights under Article 8 of the [name] on Human Rights, as incorporated into the Human Rights Act 1998, which protects the right to respect for private and family life and the home. The proposal is intended to improve the living conditions of the occupiers, and I accept that dismissing the appeal would prevent the appellant from carrying out the development as proposed. I have also had regard to the general principles of the [name] on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), including the need to treat the best interests of a child as a primary consideration. However, these interests must be weighed alongside the wider public interest. In this case, any interference with Article 8 rights would be limited and proportionate, arising from the application of established planning policies which pursue the legitimate objective of preventing inappropriate development in the Green Belt. I therefore find no breach of Article 8, nor any conflict with the relevant principles of the UNCRC.

In addition, I have considered the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. I acknowledge that the proposal is partly motivated by the needs of an occupier with protected characteristics. However, the PSED does not require that planning permission be granted where development would otherwise conflict with adopted policy, nor does it remove the requirement for very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt. In this case, there is limited supporting evidence for the development to support the specific needs of the occupier, and the dwelling remains capable of continued residential occupation in its existing form. Taking these matters together, I find that no equality, human rights, or child‐related considerations, whether individually or cumulatively, outweigh the harm identified. Accordingly, these matters do not alter the overall planning balance.

No other considerations have been put forward that would outweigh the harm identified. The absence of neighbour objection, the domestic scale of the proposal, and the use of sympathetic materials are common features of householder schemes and do not, individually or cumulatively, amount to very special circumstances in a Green Belt context.

Taking all matters together, I conclude that the other considerations advanced by the appellant, either individually or cumulatively, do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt arising from the inappropriateness of the development. Accordingly, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal do not exist.

The appellant has raised concerns regarding the Council’s handling of the application, including a perceived lack of engagement and the absence of an opportunity to amend the scheme prior to refusal. However, issues relating to procedural conduct or the way in which the application was processed are not determinative of the planning merits of the proposal before me. Accordingly, these matters do not alter my previous findings on the main issues.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposed development would conflict with the development plan, and there are no material considerations to indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the plan. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.