Appeal 6002754

[name] and B are dismissed.

[name] and B concern similar proposed developments, with the only exception being the proposed roof materials for the single storey extensions. I have considered each on its own merits. However, given that they raise very similar issues, both appeals are combined within the same decision letter.

The main issues for [name] and B are: • whether the proposals 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 proposed developments on the openness of the Green Belt; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness would be clearly outweighed by other considerations to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposals. Appeal Decisions 6002754, 6002764

The Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 154 of the Framework establishes that there are exceptions to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, including at point (c), which relates to the extension or alteration of a building if it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

Policies 1 and 13 of the St Albans District Local Plan Review (1994) (the LP) broadly conform to the general thrust of national Green Belt policy. Policy 1 establishes the extent of the Green Belt within the district. Policy 13 is more stringent in applying a presumption against extensions to houses in the Green Belt but does state that extensions may be permitted provided the scale or visual impact upon the building, as originally constructed, would not create a building significantly larger or of a different character.

The Council’s Residential Extensions and [name] in the Green Belt Supplementary Planning Guidance (2004) (the SPG) provides additional detail on the implementation of LP Policy 13. It provides approximate suitable floorspace and volume ranges for extensions, as well as establishing assessment criteria (ii) to (viii), which include consideration of existing extensions, the location and type of extension proposed, and visibility from public viewpoints.

No [site address] (No 6) is a modest two-storey semi-detached property located on [site address] . It sits on the end of a short row of dwellings of a similar scale and design. No 6 is set within a much larger plot than its neighbours, which together with its end of row location, mean that its side elevation is visible to passersby when viewed from [site address] , despite the presence of some low-level soft landscaping. Although [site address] does not allow through traffic, it is nevertheless publicly accessible. The rear boundary of the plot comprises a short fence, beyond which is extensive open agricultural land.

No 6 has previously been extended, which included the addition of a sizeable two-storey projection to the rear. It is now approximately 39% greater in floorspace than its original form, which is extremely close to the upper limit of the increase in floorspace considered acceptable in the SPG (40%). The proposals, which would include an addition to the existing two-storey projection, would significantly increase the amount of floorspace above that of the original dwelling by approximately 88%, over double that which the SPG considers appropriate. Furthermore, the existing and proposed extensions would cumulatively increase the volume of the building by approximately 225m3, which would be much greater than the SPG considers appropriate (between 90 and 180m3).

When considered with the existing additions, and despite the reduction is scale from previous iterations, the proposed extensions would add considerable bulk and massing to what was originally a modest property. Furthermore, the rear extension would stretch a substantial distance beyond the existing rear extension, significantly elongating its original form. Despite being located on a sizeable plot and would not contribute to a reduction in separation distance between properties, the large size and extent of the extensions would constitute disproportionate Appeal Decisions 6002754, 6002764 additions to the original dwelling and would not therefore benefit from the exception under Paragraph 154(c) of the Framework. Accordingly, the proposals would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Due to the large scale of the plot and its end location on the row of cottages, the side of No 6 is visible from [site address] and therefore perceivable to passersby. The low-lying soft landscaping along the front boundary would not be substantial enough to preclude views of the proposed extensions. The extensions would protrude from the building in two directions and would significantly increase the volume, massing and footprint of the original building. In doing so they would result in a harmful loss of openness from a spatial and visual perspective.

Other properties in the vicinity have benefitted from extensions and it is noted that the appellant has used these to inform the design of these schemes. Of particular note are the alterations to No 4 [name], which incorporate a single and two-storey rear extension and a recently approved1 and implemented single storey side extension that are not dissimilar to those proposed. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate how these proposals were assessed by the Council and given the harm found, as articulated above, these are not examples that should be followed.

For the above reasons, the proposals under [name] and B would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful as set out at Paragraph 153 of the Framework and would cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt. [name] and B would therefore conflict with [name] 1 and 13.

Much of the large 19th century rural estate, established by [name], now forms the Childwickbury Conservation Area (CCA). [name], a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA), is a group of outlying properties within the CCA that mark the northern extremity of the estate’s stud farm and are a fine example of houses built from [name] brick and render with attractive half-timbering and roof detail. They have a distinctive colour scheme that is consistent across the original estate, helping to define its identity. Low white painted metal fence boundaries, such as those to the front of [name], are also typical of the estate.

The proposals would largely maintain the general symmetry of the pair of semi-detached properties when viewed from the front, which are generally consistent across the cottage grouping, an attribute that supports its character and appearance. Furthermore, the proposed roof forms and materials predominantly reflect those already in place or those found on neighbouring buildings. Although pebble dash is not a commonplace material on the side elevations of the cottages, it is a prominent material used across the front elevations. Its removal in this case would therefore not benefit the character and appearance of the cottages as NDHAs, and its retention would not harm the important attributes of the CCA.

It is understandable that the appellant’s aim is to provide additional accommodation and alterations to the property to meet modern living requirements. However, these are predominantly personal considerations, and planning is largely related to matters in the public interest. Furthermore, the appellant asserts that the proposals 1 Council Ref 5/2024/0722. Appeal Decisions 6002754, 6002764 would comply with various local planning policies, including those relating to residential amenity, biodiversity, trees/hedges, energy efficiency and water conservation. Nevertheless, the absence of harm in these respects does not amount to a benefit that weighs in favour but rather neutral in the overall balance.

The proposals under [name] and B would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would harm its openness. As such, the Framework requires me to give this harm substantial weight. I agree that the proposals would preserve the character and appearance of the CCA and [name] as a NDHA. However, this, together with the other considerations I have taken account of, do not outweigh the harm I have found. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed schemes do not exist.

Thus, [name] and B conflict with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate that the appeals should be decided other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that [name] and B should be dismissed.