Appeal 6003203

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:  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 proposal on the openness and purposes 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 necessary to justify the development.

The appeal site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Framework states that the fundamental aim of the Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework sets out that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate other than in the case of specified exceptions. An exception at Paragraph 154c) is the extension or alteration of a building, providing that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Policy SADM34 of the Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council Local Plan (2023) (LP) reflects this approach, to the extent that it is relevant to this appeal. Policy SP1 is also referred to on the decision notice however as this primarily relates to sustainable development it has not been determinative.

The Framework does not define what a disproportionate addition is. An assessment of whether the proposal would be disproportionate to the original building is therefore a matter of planning judgement. It is well established that a comparison should be made between the building as originally built and the building as proposed to be extended, together with any existing extensions. Policy SADM34 is consistent with this approach and also requires regard to be given to prevailing pattern of development and the established character of the surrounding area. The supporting text indicates that a quantitative and qualitive assessment should be undertaken and sets out that an addition being 50% greater than the original building would generally be considered to be disproportionate.

It is not disputed that the proposal would result in a disproportionate addition. Having visited the site and taking account of the evidence, I have no clear reason to come to a different view. Consequently, the scheme would not comply with the exception at paragraph 154c) of the Framework or Policy SADM34 of the LP.

It has not been suggested that the proposal would meet any of the other listed exceptions at Framework paragraph 154, and there is nothing before me that would lead me to find otherwise. As such, the proposal fails to meet any of the exceptions set out in Framework paragraph 154 and would therefore be inappropriate development, which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

The Framework explains that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Openness has a spatial and visual aspect.

The appeal proposal would introduce additional built form into an area which currently contributes to a sense of openness. As it would not be sited wholly within the footprint of the existing development, it would result in a small but nevertheless harmful loss of spatial openness. The appeal dwelling is positioned at a lower level than the street, yet the proposal would still be visible. The proposal would appreciably increase the width of the dwelling, particularly at first-floor level, as well as its overall height. This would give rise to a notable increase in bulk and massing, further eroding the openness of the site, leading to a small harmful reduction in visual openness.

Given the built-up context surrounding the appeal site, the resultant effect on openness, and the associated harm in both spatial and visual terms, would be limited. While the proposal would not conflict with the five purposes for including land in the Green Belt, the lack of harm on this matter would be a neutral factor, weighing neither for nor against the proposal.

Given the variety of dwelling types and architectural styles within the locality, the existing dwelling does not significantly detract from the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal would increase the prominence of the dwelling and rebalance it by restoring symmetry, as such it would not result in undue harm to the area’s character when assessed in its context. However, the absence of harm in design terms is a neutral consideration, weighing neither for nor against the proposal.

A planting and landscaping condition could offer a degree of screening of the proposed development from the road. However, if such landscaping were to fail or be removed, the proposal would become more visually prominent. Moreover, the fact that certain parts of the Green Belt are not readily visible, due to reasons such as landscape screening, does not justify a reduction in openness, as this would risk enabling ongoing and cumulative erosion of the Green Belt’s essential characteristic. This is therefore afforded limited weight in support of the proposal.

The appellants indicate that the dwelling could be extended under permitted development rights1 and have illustrated two potential schemes. I have no reason to consider that permitted development rights do not exist. There is therefore a reasonable possibility that, if the appeal were to fail, alternative development in the form of single-storey extensions and roof alterations could be carried out under permitted development. However, the weight to be afforded to the fallback positions is dependent on whether the harm is equal or greater than that arising from the appeal proposal. In this case, the fallbacks differ from the proposal in that they would be limited to single-storey development and roof alterations. The appeal proposal would introduce additional bulk and massing at first-floor level with an increased width, having a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than either of the fallback positions. Therefore, the fallback positions attract limited weight in support of the proposal.

I have been referred to a planning permission2 at No 53, where the Council afforded significant weight to a fallback position. In that case, however, the fallback was found to be more harmful than the proposal, which would not be the case in the appeal before me. Furthermore, No 53, was also originally a single-storey dwelling with side dormers and was flanked by two-storey dwellings on either side. Its original form and spatial context therefore differed materially from that of the appeal site, which comprises an existing two-storey dwelling. The example at No 53 does not alter my findings above, and in any event, I have come to my own view, based on the planning merits of the case.

A further fallback position is advanced involving the subdivision of the appeal site to create two large, detached dwellings. However, this has not been shown on a plan, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on a scheme I have not seen. Additionally, there is no clear evidence to demonstrate a genuine intention to pursue this fallback should the appeal be dismissed. Any such proposal would require a separate planning application, and there is little certainty that permission would be forthcoming. Therefore, I find this suggested fallback position to have limited weight in the determination of the appeal.

I note the intention of the proposal is to provide more spacious accommodation for the appellants and their family. This is a largely private benefit of the proposal, and it has not been shown that this is the only way to achieve the appellants’ aim and so this matter attracts limited weight. I have been directed to another appeal 1 Set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015. 2 6/2022/2037/HOUSE decision3 where very special circumstances have been found relating to family circumstances. However, a finding of very special circumstances is based on the specific details of a particular proposal in a particular location. In the absence of the details of the other personal circumstances, a detailed comparison with the appeal scheme cannot be made. Consequently, the other appeal decision does not lead me away from my above findings.

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. There would be no harm to the Green Belt purposes, however there would be limited harm to the openness of the Green Belt. In line with Paragraph 144 of the Framework the totality of the Green Belt harm attracts substantial weight. 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.

Overall, I attach moderate weight to the benefits of the proposal which make up the other considerations. As such, the other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal do not exist and the proposal would fail to accord with the Green Belt aims set out in Policy SADM34 of the LP and the Framework.

My above findings bring the appeal proposal into conflict with the development plan read as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, to suggest the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, 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.