Appeal 6003104

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issues are: i) whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; ii) the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; iii) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and iv) 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 necessary to justify the proposal.

Policy CS5 of the [name] (2013) (CS) confirms that the Council will apply national Green Belt policy to protect the openness and character of the Green Belt. In that regard, Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within a given list of exceptions. One such exception is Paragraph 154 (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. The term ‘original building’ is defined in the glossary of the Framework as ‘a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after that date, as it was built originally’.

The meaning of ‘disproportionate’ is not defined in the Framework or the CS. The appellant contends that the Council’s approach places ‘disproportionate emphasis on historic floorspace figures’. I agree that floorspace is not the only way to consider whether an addition would be disproportionate, as is also observed in the appeal decision referenced by the appellant1. However, an assessment of ‘additions over and above the size of the original building’ necessarily involves consideration of any previous increases that have taken place and this is well established. This may include consideration of several factors including for example a comparison with the original building’s footprint, floorspace, volume or massing and is ultimately a matter of planning judgement.

The Council indicates that the dwelling was significantly smaller in 1983 and has since undergone substantial extensions and this has not been disputed. Indeed, the appellant’s ‘Planning Statement’ suggests that factoring in the proposed extensions, this would result in cumulative increases in gross internal floor area of 153%. I accept that the proposed extensions would largely sit above the existing ground floor footprint. Even so, they would add to the already substantial extensions to the original building which, in the absence of detailed evidence to the contrary, are also likely have significantly increased its footprint, volume and massing. Taken cumulatively with earlier extensions, the proposal would therefore be disproportionate relative to size of the original building and the exception at Paragraph 154 (c) of the Framework is not met.

In addition, I observed several outbuildings positioned close to the host dwelling. The precise details of these structures are unclear, but the Council suggests that they are not original and have been added to the site over time. There is nothing before me to suggest otherwise. My site visit indicated that they appear to function as normal domestic adjuncts, given their close proximity to the main house. This further indicates that disproportionate additions to the original building have already taken place and only compounds my findings that the proposed development would be a disproportionate addition.

For the reasons set out, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and the relevant development plan policy.

Paragraph 142 of the Framework sets out 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.

While the footprint of the proposed extension would be modest and much of the additional floorspace would be positioned above existing built form, the proposal would nonetheless have a spatial effect on openness by virtue of the dwelling’s increased volume and mass, particularly at first floor level. Even accounting for intervening vegetation, the extension would be visible to those travelling along the A5183, particularly in the vicinity of the access point where the low height of the wall, gaps through the gate and the dwelling’s elevated position would allow for an appreciation of the proposals. Taking these spatial and visual factors together, there would be a modest effect on the openness of the green belt. 1 Appeal ref APP/A1910/D/23/3326747

Therefore, the proposal would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt, thereby conflicting with the aims of including land within the Green Belt when assessed against the Framework.

The appeal site contains a two-storey dwelling. It is positioned within a substantial plot and set well back from the boundary with [site address] . The two-storey front elevation incorporates evenly distributed windows, two ground floor bays and a central entrance door all of which give the dwelling a degree of symmetry. Due to the single storey scale of existing side and rear projections, they have a subservient appearance which ensures that the dwelling has a cohesive and suitably balanced design.

Even accounting for the proposed matching window design and materials, the extensions would significantly elongate the dwelling as a result of the continuation of the main roof line. Together with the projection forward at first floor level, the extension would lack subservience, having a considerable mass that would overwhelm and unacceptably detract from the cohesive elements of the host dwelling’s design. In these respects, the proposal would dominate rather than harmonise with the existing house, contrary to [name] 7 of the Dacorum Borough Local Plan (2004).

Consequently, the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would be contrary to policies CS11 and CS12 of the Dacorum Borough Council Core Strategy (2013) which require development within settlements to respect and integrate with the general and streetscape character of the area.

The applicant suffers from chronic health conditions and suggests that they require their own private sleeping accommodation. Disability is a protected characteristic and so I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) set out under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment, 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. The appellant has also highlighted the need for further accommodation to allow additional family members to occupy the dwelling.

However, while the proposal may provide additional accommodation, no detailed evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the health needs of the occupant, and personal desires of the family cannot be met through the existing level of accommodation which the floor plans indicate already includes four bedrooms. Accordingly, there is no clear evidence to suggest that the dismissal of the appeal would have a disproportionate effect on those with protected characteristics, when weighed against the harm to the Green Belt and the character and appearance of the area.

The absence of harm in relation to neighbouring living conditions, highways, landscape or ecology, are of neutral consequence.

The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should only be approved in very special circumstances. I have also found that the proposal would result in a modest effect on the openness of the Green Belt and that there would be harm to the character and appearance of the area.

Paragraph 153 of the Framework specifies that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness, and that very special 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.

Taken in their totality, the other considerations presented in this appeal carry limited weight and so do not clearly outweigh the harm identified. As such, the very special circumstances that would be needed to justify the proposal do not exist.

For the reasons given, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.