Appeal 6002786

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 policies; • the effect of the proposal upon the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, with particular regard to the traditional character of the dwelling; and • whether the 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 appeal property is one of a pair of semi-detached dwellings that are set away from other residential development, being accessed via a twin tyre track, from [address], Stannington in the south. The pair have large, open gardens with some outbuildings and are surrounded by open fields within a reasonably flat landscape.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework states 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 development in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, subject to a number of exceptions as set out in paragraph 154. One of these, at 154. c), is 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. Annex 2 of the Framework defines ‘original building’ as a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was built originally.

Policy ST7 and ST8 of the Northumberland Local Plan (2022) (the NLP) identify Green Belt within Northumberland and are broadly consistent with the Framework, requiring proposals to be considered against the national criteria set out within it.

The appeal property has been extended to the side and at the front with a porch, both of which were erected following an historic grant of planning permission1. The Council has used this to calculate the area of the original building. None of the Council’s figures have been disputed by the appellant.

It is proposed to extend to the side and rear of the existing dwelling at two storeys. This would predominantly replace the existing side extension and represent a continuation of the roof of the original dwelling.

Based on the information provided by the Council, the floor area of the original building is 60.[address] metres. The proposal would represent an increase in size to 152.[address] metres, which would equate to a 150% increase in the size of the original building, a substantial and considerable increase.

The proposal also involves the addition of an extension to the outbuilding located to the rear of the dwelling. It is unclear if this has been extended within its lifetime, however it appears to be of a similar age to the dwelling. I saw no obvious additions and therefore on the basis of what is before me, I consider that the existing building is the original building for the purposes of paragraph 154 c). I am not provided with figures for the proposed extension to the outbuilding, however, from the proposed plans it appears that the proposed extension would be represent an increase in floor area of around 100%. Essentially doubling its size, the proposed outbuilding extension would be a substantial addition to the existing building.

Therefore, taken together with the existing extensions, the proposed increases to both the original dwelling and to the outbuilding would both amount to disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Consequently, the proposal would be inappropriate development that is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. In accordance with paragraph 153 of the Framework, this is a matter to which I attach substantial weight. For the same reasons, the proposal is contrary to Policies ST7 and ST8 of the NLP.

Paragraph 142 of the Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl, by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence, the assessment of which requires consideration of both spatial and visual impacts.

The proposed increase to the volume, height and massing of both buildings through the proposed extensions would inevitably affect spatial openness. Given the scale of the proposal, it would moderately reduce the spatial openness of the Green Belt. 1 CM/76/D/406.

Due to the open nature of the extensive garden and the surrounding fields, the visual openness of the Green Belt is clearly apparent around the appeal site. The proposed increase in size would be evident to the front of the dwelling, with the extended element being noticeably larger than the original dwelling, and its attached neighbour. The proposal would be clearly discernible as a substantial addition to the side of the semi-detached pair, seen from the access track and from [address], viewed across the open fields. On this basis, the proposed increase to the dwelling would moderately harm the visual openness of the Green Belt. Located to the rear of the existing dwelling and with a lack of public visibility, the proposed addition to the outbuilding would result in more limited loss of visual openness.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would result in moderate harm to the openness of the Green Belt, contrary to the provisions of the Framework in this regard.

Owing to its substantial scale and massing, as well as the continuation of the roof of the existing dwelling, the proposal would result in a dominant addition to the property that would unbalance the pair of semi-detached dwellings. Seen across the open fields, the proposal would therefore appear as an incongruous and imposing form of development.

The detached outbuilding is a simple twentieth century brick building. The proposed addition to its rear would dominate the rear of this building, however it would be well screened on all sides and would not be publicly visible from outside of the appeal site. As such, I am satisfied that this aspect of the proposal would not generate any discernible harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Nonetheless, for the above reasons the proposal, namely the extension to the dwelling, would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. There would therefore be conflict with Policies HOU9, QOP1 and QOP2 and Policy 10 of the Stannington Neighbourhood Plan (2018) which, together, seek to ensure new extensions are subordinate in scale to host dwellings and preserve character and appearance, including that of the countryside.

There would also be conflict with paragraph 135 of the Framework which requires planning decisions to ensure new developments add to the overall quality of the area, are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, layout and appropriate and effective landscaping and are sympathetic to local character.

The appellant has set out that they require the proposed extension due to the need for extra accommodation for foster children. This would clearly represent a benefit of the proposal. However, I am not provided with the exact requirements of the appellant and there is nothing before me to indicate that the bedrooms and living space sought could not be delivered in a more sensitive way, given the substantial increase in floor area proposed. Nonetheless, this consideration carries weight in favour of the appeal.

The appellant intends for the outbuilding to be occupied by her elderly parents. However, as I have set out above, there is nothing to indicate that this need could not be met through a more sensitive re-use of the building.

I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. I have also had regard to rights conveyed within the Human Rights Act.

In respect of the above, a refusal of planning permission is a proportionate and necessary approach to the legitimate aim of ensuring that Green Belt harm and harm to character and appearance is avoided. Furthermore, the protection of the public interest cannot be achieved by means that are less obstructive of the human rights of the appellant and her parents. Therefore, whilst I acknowledge the personal circumstances of the appellant and her parents, I conclude that these are not matters which outweigh the harm that would be caused by the proposal in respect of my above conclusion with regard to the Green Belt and character and appearance of the area.

The proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would harm openness. It would also be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. The Framework establishes that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations. For the reasons I have set out above, the weight I attach to the other considerations, when taken together, would be moderate, such that they would not clearly outweigh the substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm alongside the harm to character and appearance. In this instance, the very special circumstances required to justify the proposed development do not therefore exist.

The appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan and there are no material considerations, including the approach of the Framework, worthy of sufficient weight that would indicate a decision other than in accordance with it. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.