Appeal 6002605

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 any relevant development plan policies;  the effect of the development 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 required to justify the proposal.

The Framework states 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 several exceptions as set out in paragraph

One such exception is 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 KS3 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan: Part 1 - [name] (Adopted 2014) (CS) provides that, amongst other things, the most important purposes of the Green Belt in the area are to protect the separate physical identity of individual settlements in the area by maintaining wedges and corridors of open land between them, and to maintain an area of open land around the conurbation.

Policy GB3 of the East Dorset Local Plan (Adopted 2002) (LP), states, amongst other things, within the Green Belt, extensions to or replacements of existing dwellings will only be allowed where the size and scale of a proposed extension does not dominate the existing dwelling. However, LP Policy GB3 pre-dates the Framework and contains a different list of exceptions, and I therefore give LP Policy GB3 limited weight. As such, the Framework is the primary consideration under this

Similarly, the supporting text to LP Policy GB3 provides that the Council will only use as a general guideline whether the extension is greater than 50% or 140sqm of the gross residential floor area of the dwelling as it existed when the Green Belt was designated on 5 February 1980. Considering that the policy pre-dates the Framework, that includes a definition of ‘original building’ as being a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was built originally, I give this part of the supporting text to LP Policy GB3 limited weight in my assessment under this main issue. Nonetheless, as the Framework does not define ‘disproportionate’, I give some weight to the general guideline of a 50% increase or 140sqm.

Based on the evidence before me, the exact size of the original building for the purposes of paragraph 154 of the Framework is disputed. However, broadly-speaking, the sizes and shapes shown favour the interpretation of the original building as put forward by the appellants, particularly when looking at the historic maps, which includes the conservatory, utility and outbuildings, and therefore my assessment has been made on this basis.

However, with regard to the proposal, I see no good reason in this case why the proposed garage would not be a ‘normal domestic adjunct’. Despite not comprising habitable floorspace and being detached from the main dwelling, it would serve and be in very close proximity to the main building and would be visually associated with it. [name] acknowledge that the pre-amble to LP Policy GB3 is silent in relation to garages, the pre-amble does not provide a list of development that is included or excluded from the policy and as such I find that any consideration of the proposed floorspace should include the garage. Therefore, and although detached, I find that the proposed garage should be included within the calculations related to the size of the proposal. Using the appellant’s calculations, this takes the proposal to approximately 339sqm.

Although the proposed extension would be confined to a similar footprint to the existing dwelling, it would effectively add an additional floor, which would involve a corresponding increase in the scale, massing, and bulk of the existing property. Furthermore, inclusion of the garage in the calculations for the proposal takes the percentage increase above the 50% and 140sqm referenced in relation to LP Policy GB3. It is noteworthy that for the same reasons, the proposal would be of a size and scale that would dominate the existing dwelling contrary to LP Policy GB3.

In light of this and given the upward extension of the building that would be highly visible from [address], in my view the proposal would result in a disproportionate addition over-and-above the size of the original building, in conflict with paragraph 154c) of the Framework. The proposal therefore constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the Framework.

Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt that has spatial as well as visual aspects. The absence of built development is a characteristic of the Green Belt.

The appeal property is very clearly visible from the adjacent highway. Notwithstanding the existence of other two storey properties within the vicinity of the appeal site, the openness of the Green Belt is clearly evident around the property and the wider area due to the open gaps between it and the closest dwellings.

The proposal would introduce built form, particularly through the first-floor upward extension, where none presently exists. The proposal would therefore occupy additional vertical space by reason of its associated massing and volume.

The increase in the volume, height and massing of the existing building, particularly through the upward extension of the dwelling, would result in a harmful loss of spatial and visual openness, albeit this would be limited given the scale of the proposal. This factor weighs somewhat against the proposal.

The Framework makes it clear at paragraph 153 that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. It establishes that ‘very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Although the proposal would somewhat improve the appearance of the appeal property, this would merely serve to maintain the character and appearance of the area. Hence, this, and the lack of harm to the living conditions of nearby occupiers, are neutral factors, which do not weigh in favour of the proposal.

My attention has been drawn to a previous planning permission granted at number 6 Grange Road1 and to exclusion of the garage from any calculations of floorspace and a lack of consideration of any impact upon openness. However, I note that proposal did not involve the upward extension of a bungalow, was considered under an older version of the Framework and resulted in a slightly smaller percentage increase in floorspace. Furthermore, I must consider the current proposal on its merits and although another building in the immediate area has been extended, this is not a good reason to permit inappropriate development in the Green Belt. As such, this is a neutral factor in my decision.

I have had regard to the reference to various fall-back positions. The first of these relates to the grant of Prior Approval2 for a single storey rear and side extension. On the evidence before me, I consider that there is a real prospect that this would be implemented in the event that this appeal is dismissed. However, by reason of this fall-back position being single-storey, and in the absence of detailed evidence 1 3/20/0617/HOU 2 P/PALH/2024/00882 demonstrating that it would result in a size of development greater than the current proposal, I give it limited weight.

The appellant has also referenced an intent to carry out an upward extension to the property under Class AA of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order. In this regard, I note a related application submitted to the Council3. However, I have limited details in relation to this application and given that there has been no decision in relation to this from the Council, I cannot be sure that it will be granted and represents a realistic fallback position. As such, I only give this limited weight.

Finally, my attention has been drawn to the submission of a Certificate of Lawfulness application for a proposed development of 2.no detached single storey double garage outbuildings4. Again however, given that there has been no decision in relation to this from the Council, I cannot be sure that it will be granted and represents a realistic fallback position. Furthermore, should the Certificate be granted, or another form of detached outbuilding be possible under permitted development rights, there is no mechanism before me to prevent them being implemented in advance of the works forming part of this appeal. As a result, they would not provide an opportunity for an improvement over and above the appeal proposal. Therefore, I only give this limited weight.

My attention has also been drawn to a number of appeal decisions5. However, the appeals relate to different parts of the country with the majority considered against different development plan policies and I do not have full details of the proposals. Furthermore, the appeals at [address], The Chase and [address] and [name] are from 2012, 2013, 2016 and 2020 under a different version of the Framework. With regard to [address], there were a number of material considerations that justified a greater percentage increase with the Inspector finding that the proposal complied with the relevant development plan policies. With regard to The Chase, again there was support for the size of the extension in local development policy. With regard to [address] and [name], these were for single storey extensions where very special circumstances applied, and openness would not be harmed. Finally, with regard to [address], this was considered to be a ‘small addition’ largely screened from public view. As such, I do not find these decisions and proposals to be directly comparable to the appeal before me, and I give them limited weight.

The proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would result in a harmful loss of openness to the Green Belt, in both visual and spatial terms. The Framework indicates that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Such 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. The Framework requires that the harm by reason of inappropriateness and to the openness of the Green Belt be given substantial weight. 3 P/PAED/2026/00848 4 P/CLP/2026/00843 5 APP/Y3615/A/12/2168295, APP/Y3615/D/13/2190816, APP/R0660/D/16/3152865, APP/B1740/D/20/3247672, APP/V1260/D/21/3284799

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would result in a reduction in its openness. These matters therefore carry substantial weight. Taken together, I find that the other considerations in this case only carry limited weight and as such do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal do not exist. Therefore, the proposal would not comply with the Green Belt aims of Policy KS3 of the [name], or ‘saved’ Policy GB3 of the Local Plan, or the Framework, and consequently would be unacceptable.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, the appeal is dismissed.