Appeal 6003228

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for resubmission of approved application ref: 25/00590/FUL (Single storey extension to front. 1.5 storey extension and two-storey infill extension to rear. Replacement fenestrations and changes to openings front and rear and rooflight to front) to increase the size of the front extension and include a flue to the rear at [site address] , Wakefield [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02037/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location and [name] 2025-821-030; Ground Floor Plan As Proposed 2025-821-031 [name]; First Floor Plan As Proposed 2025-821-032 [name]; [name] 2025-821-033 [name];

The external walls and roofing materials of the development hereby approved shall in all respects match those used in the construction of the existing dwelling. Fenestrations to be used shall be as per the approved elevations - with off-white sash windows to be used to the front elevation of the dwelling, black casement windows to be used to the rear and black aluminium bifold doors. Such finishes shall thereafter be retained and maintained in perpetuity.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no doors, windows or any other openings shall be installed at first floor level in either side elevation of the rear extension hereby approved.

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 proposed plans include both those elements that obtained planning permission under approved scheme 25/00590/FUL and the addition of a flue and to increase the size of the approved front extension. As such the rear infill extension has previously gained consent.

In processing the application, the Council changed the description of the development from that entered on the application form. I have used this revised description in my decision, as it more accurately reflects the proposal.

The main issue is 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.

The appeal property is a mid-terraced, two-storey barn conversion with existing single storey front and rear extensions, positioned within a courtyard arrangement of dwellings on the edge of Netherton.

The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts, whose essential characteristics are identified in the Framework as their openness and permanence. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate, subject to a number of exceptions in the Framework at paragraph 154, of which include 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. Policy LP62 of the Wakefield District Local Plan 2036, Volume 1 Development Strategy, Strategic and Local Policies (LP) takes the same approach to extensions to dwellings in the Green Belt, whilst additionally requiring that the scale, materials and general design are in keeping with the character of the buildings and their surroundings.

The Framework does not define ‘disproportionate additions’. In advising that proposed domestic extensions will be treated on their own merits, the Wakefield District Residential Design Guide Part 2: Guidance for Householders Supplementary Planning Document (RDG) (2018) identifies that extensions of up to 50% of the volume and floor space of the original dwelling may be regarded as proportionate additions.

The appeal proposal seeks an enlargement to the previously approved extension1 to the dwelling’s front porch, which itself was an addition to the original building. By increasing its width and depth so that it occupies a greater part of an existing front 1 Council’s reference: 25/00590/FUL patio, the appellant intends the extension to also function as a utility room, a facility that the property currently lacks.

The Council calculates that the proposal would result in a cumulative increase of 42.5% in volume and 64.5% in floorspace over and above the original dwelling. The appellant’s figures differ slightly, indicating a volume increase of closer to 50% and a marginally lower increase in floor area. Both parties agree that the scheme would exceed the RDG’s 50% threshold in terms of floorspace, but not in respect of volume.

Taking into account the modest size of the original dwelling, the extent to which the proposal would exceed the RDG’s 50% floorspace limit would only be very minor. Although bulkier than previously approved, due to its limited scale and height, the proposal would nevertheless still read as a clearly subordinate addition to the dwelling. It would sit comfortably within the enclosed constraints of the property’s front garden and would not be particularly apparent when viewed within its wider courtyard setting. Moreover, I agree with the appellant that mass is a more relevant measure than floorspace when considering proportionality in this context, and in this regard it is common ground that the extension’s additional volume would remain within the RDG’s guidance.

Judging the proposal on its individual merits, I therefore consider that the proposed enlarged extension, together with the existing and previously approved additions to the dwelling, would not amount to disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Thus, by according with the relevant part of Policy LP62 and benefiting from the exception in paragraph 154 c) of the Framework, the proposal would not constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt.

The Council has not disputed that the design and appearance of the proposed extension would, on balance, be acceptable and additionally has no objection to the installation of an external flue to the rear. I agree with this assessment, and therefore find the proposal would accord with the criteria in Policy LP62 that requires the scale, materials and general design to be in keeping with the character of the buildings and their surroundings.

[name] have found that the proposal would accord with paragraph 154 c) of the Framework and LP Policy LP62, neither of which require an assessment of the effect of the proposal on openness, it is not necessary to consider this matter.

The Council’s decision notice additionally refers to LP Policy SP22, however this appears to be of little if any relevance to the proposed extension and therefore weighs neither for nor against the proposal.

The Council has not suggested any conditions, however the officer report indicates that, had the application been approved, it would have applied the same conditions as those attached to its approved scheme 25/00590/FUL. In addition to the statutory commencement condition, these conditions comprised of a list of approved plans, specified materials, and a restriction on the installation of first floor side openings within the rear extension.

A condition requiring compliance with the approved plans is necessary to provide certainty over what has been approved. Given the proximity of the rear extension to the mutual boundary with adjoining occupiers, I agree that a prohibition on first floor side openings within the rear elevation is justified in the interests of protecting neighbouring living conditions.

Unlike the previously approved scheme, the application form and proposed plans provide no materials information, other than stating that the walls of the enlarged front extension would be constructed in matching stone. However, the only difference between the proposed plans for the appeal proposal and 25/00590/FUL relates to the size of the front extension and the addition of a flue, and the appellant’s evidence does not refer to any proposed changes to the previously approved suite of materials. On this basis, and given the description of development, I am satisfied that it is necessary and appropriate to impose a similar materials condition to ensure a satisfactory appearance.

For the reasons given above and having regard to the development plan and any material considerations, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions set out.

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