Appeal 6003089

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Newcastle City Council. This is the subject of a separate decision.

The host property, No. [site address] , is a bungalow located within the Green Belt. Planning permission1 has been granted for extensions and alterations to the property, including a first-floor extension to create an additional storey. Condition 2 requires that development to be carried out in accordance with a series of approved plans. 1 Planning permission referenced 2024/0115/01/HOU

The appellant applied to the Council2 to carry out the development without complying with condition 2 - seeking a larger first-floor extension – but the Council refused it. In summary, the Council refused the application because it considered that the development would harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, constitute inappropriate development within, and harm, the Green Belt, and adversely affect the character and appearance of the area. The appellant has subsequently lodged this appeal.

Given this context, the main issues are: • Whether the proposal to vary condition 2 would result in a development which would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • The effect that the proposal to vary condition 2 would have on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; • The effect that the proposal to vary condition 2 would have on the character and appearance of the area; • The effect that the proposal to vary condition 2 would have on the living conditions of the occupiers of [name], in respect of outlook and privacy, and of the occupiers of [address] South, in respect of outlook only; 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 National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out the particular types of development which do not constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt. They are identified at paragraph 154 onwards. If a development meets any of these exceptions, it will not constitute inappropriate development. However, if a development does not, it will amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt, and it should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Conversely, together, paragraph 153 and footnote 55 of the Framework do not determine whether a development constitutes inappropriate development. Instead, they set out that, if a development is considered to not constitute inappropriate development on previously developed land or grey belt (having made an assessment against the relevant parts of paragraph 154 and onwards), then this is excluded from the policy requirement to give substantial weight to any harm to the Green Belt, including to its openness.

The appeal concerns the extension of an existing building. Framework paragraph 154 c) is dedicated to, and applicable to, this form of development, and it establishes that, for a development to not constitute inappropriate development, the extension or alteration of a building must not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 2 Planning application referenced 2024/0115/02/RVC

The precise extent to which the existing property may have been altered or extended from its original form is not particularly clear, however, I certainly have no reason to conclude that the bungalow on site now has reduced in size.

The existing planning permission sought for variance permits the addition of a new floor of accommodation atop of the existing bungalow. The approved first-floor extension is large enough to provide four bedrooms, each served by en suites and wardrobe spaces. The proposal would permit this extra storey to enlarge, projecting considerably farther to the rear as well as spanning the entire width of the property. The outcome would be that the existing bungalow would transform into a two-storey house with significant increases in its floorspace, height, mass and overall volume. The magnitude of the overall extensions to the property which would arise would amount to disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

Consequently, the applicable Green Belt development type exception – that at paragraph 154 (c) – is not met. The proposal to vary condition 2 would result in a development which would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This means that the proposal would, on these grounds alone, harm the Green Belt, a matter of substantial weight.

In spatial terms, the proposal would result in a volumetric increase in the size of the property in comparison to the permitted development. By extending the first-floor accommodation by a considerable amount, this size increase would, in turn, be marked. Overall, owing to the property enlargement sought through the proposal, the site would become more built-up.

The additional volume created at first-floor level would be visible from neighbouring properties. However, since it would be added to the host property’s rear, it would be partly screened from public vantage points on nearby roads and pavements. Therefore, it would not be prominent.

Even so, owing to its scale, and because the site would become more built-up, a reduction in the openness of the Green Belt would nevertheless arise, principally in spatial terms.

Given the nature of the proposal and its location within Woolsington village, among existing residential properties where built development already has an influence, the resulting effect on openness would be limited. Nevertheless, a reduction in openness would arise, and this would be harmful to the Green Belt.

Due to the combination of its domestic scale and the site’s location amidst a residential area, the proposal would not result in sprawl, in towns merging, any encroachment into the countryside or any harm to any historic towns. Neither would it undermine urban regeneration. Therefore, despite my findings on openness, the proposal would not result in any conflict with the Green Belt’s purposes.

With its generously proportioned property plots and mature gardens, trees, and landscape features, Woolsington has verdant, spacious qualities that contribute positively to its overall character and appearance. Large, two-storey residential properties are also prevalent in the area.

Since the proposal would extend the permitted first-floor accommodation, it would not reduce the size of the host property’s garden or result in the loss of valued landscape features. I have already set out the reasons why the extension to the permitted development would not be prominent.

As a result, the proposal would not adversely affect Woolsington’s verdant and spacious qualities, and its effects on the character and appearance of the area would be acceptable. In these regards the proposal complies with Policy DM20 of the [site address] Development and Allocations Plan 2015-2030 (2020) (the DaAP) and Policy CS15 of the [name] and Urban Core Plan for Gateshead and [site address] 2010-2030 (2015) (the CS). Together, in summary and amongst other matters, these Policies require developments to be of high quality and to respond positively to local distinctiveness and character. Living conditions

[name] is a bungalow which adopts a back-land position to the rear of the host property and Nos. 4 and [address] South (Nos. 4 and 6). It is served by a long drive, spacious front and rear gardens whilst an extension partly wraps around its frontage and contains a series of windows and French doors.

The proposal would result in the host property’s planned first-floor accommodation and windows coming closer to [name]. However, the Council has set out that a distance of 20 metres would remain to [name] frontage. Consequently, the extended first floor would be some distance away, not unduly close.

[name] is not positioned directly behind the host property but set at an angle to it with most of its frontage windows/doors orientated slightly away rather than towards the host property. In turn, the views between opposing windows/doors would be angled and the effects of the extended first-floor’s mass lessened. Furthermore, along the shared plot boundary of the two properties are trees and bushes, which I have no reason to conclude will not endure, and these would serve to partly screen the extended first-floor and interrupt views.

[name] front garden is already the subject of some overlooking from Nos 4 and 6, the rear elevations of which face it. Consequently, as existing, it is not very private - the rear garden provides the property with its more private external amenity space. This rear garden would remain well-separated and screened from the extended first-floor accommodation.

For these various reasons, the proposal would not unacceptably infringe upon the privacy of the occupiers of [name], nor harmfully reduce their outlook. No. 6

An access drive and some garden land is sited between the host property and neighbouring No. 6. This provides for a quite considerable separation between the two properties. Consequently, the extended first-floor proposed would be set away from No. 6, reducing for the occupiers of that property the effects of its scale and mass.

Moreover, the evidence before me presents that the nearest of No. 6’s rear-facing first-floor windows serves a bathroom/wet room rather than a main “habitable” room, and it is obscurely glazed. Consequently, outlook from the window is already restricted, neither is the room its serves one whereby an open aspect is important. No. 6 has a ground-floor, single-storey extension with glazed elements, but this is set-in from where the extended first-floor would be sited whilst an existing boundary wall already provides No. 6’s extension with a strong sense of enclosure.

I have been referred to a 45-degree angle outlook test within a design guide, however, the full details of this are not before me for my analysis. Regardless, for the reasons I have set out, factors apply which mitigate the effects of the proposal on the outlook of the occupiers of No. 6 such that their living conditions would be acceptably preserved.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal to vary condition 2 would have acceptable effects on the living conditions of the occupiers of [name], in respect of outlook and privacy, and on the living conditions of the occupiers of No. 6, in respect of outlook. Consequently, the proposal accords with Policy DM23 of the DaAP which requires developments to provide for a good standard of residential amenity for existing and future occupiers, including in respect to their outlook and privacy. The proposal also complies with policy within the Framework which seeks to ensure developments promote health and provide a high standard of amenity.

The proposal would result in enlarged and improved accommodation for the property’s occupants. This would be a benefit but one of limited weight.

The appellant has referred to the existing planning permission, citing some loadbearing related difficulties and compromises stemming from its design which the proposal would address. However, I have quite limited information before me on the magnitude of any deficiencies with the approved design, neither is it clear that the proposal is the only means to address them.

It seems that when the Council approved the existing planning permission it attributed weight to another scheme which could be implemented at the site utilising permitted development rights. However, I have no substantive evidence before me which indicates to me that a development with comparable effects to that which would be brought about by the appeal proposal could be undertaken as permitted development. Consequently, there is no fallback position before me which weighs in the appeal’s favour to any meaningful extent.

In my third and fourth main issues, I have found that the proposal would not give rise to harmful effects on the character or appearance of the area, nor would it harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. However, these are matters of neutral consequence which do not weigh in the appeal proposal’s favour.

In my first main issue, I have concluded that varying condition 2 would result in a development which would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. On these grounds alone, the Green Belt would be harmed, and this is a matter of substantial weight. [name] have set out in my second main issue, the proposal would also reduce the Green Belt's openness, which gives rise to additional harm.

The Framework makes it clear that inappropriate development should only be approved where very special circumstances exist. It is important to note that these very special circumstances will not exist unless the totality of the harm to the Green Belt (and any other harm should there be any) is clearly outweighed by the other considerations. This means that it is insufficient for the other considerations to merely outweigh the harm - they must do so decisively.

The other considerations which apply in this case are not of sufficient weight to clearly outweigh the harm which would be wrought upon the Green Belt. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal referenced at paragraph 153 of the Framework do not exist.

Furthermore, DaAP Policy DM31 relates to Green Belt development. Amongst its content, it sets out that within the Woolsington Village Envelope Green Belt, limited extensions to buildings will only be allowed where national policy requirements for the Green Belt are met. Since the proposal would not result in a limited extension of the original dwelling, and very special circumstances do not exist, conflict with Policy DM31 arises. CS Policy CS19 also concerns the Green Belt. However, its objective of protecting the Green Belt specifically links to the purposes of the Green Belt, as opposed to matters of inappropriateness or openness. The proposal would not offend the Green Belt’s purposes, consequently it is compliant with Policy CS19.

The proposal to vary condition 2 of the existing planning permission would not harm the character or appearance of the area, nor would it harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. However, it would harm the Green Belt. This harm means that the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and it conflicts with Green Belt policy within the Framework - a very important material consideration. There are no material considerations in this case which indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.