Appeal 6003617

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of glazed oak-frame link between utility and garage at [site address] , C278 Steel to [name], Steel, Northumberland, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02519/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing Nos: P41 [name] (Proposed - Planning Site, [name] and [name]); and P42 [name] (Proposed - Planning Elevations); and

No above ground construction shall take place until details of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained as such thereafter.

The main issues are whether or not the proposed development is inappropriate in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; and the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, including the appeal property.

The appeal site falls within land defined as Green Belt. The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Framework paragraph 154 establishes that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate in the Green Belt, subject to several exceptions. Policies STP7 and STP8 of the Northumberland Local Plan 2016 – 2036 (2022) (NLP) reflect the approach of the Framework, to the extent that they are relevant to this appeal. My attention has been drawn to the exception at Framework paragraph 154 c), which allows for 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.

To ascertain whether the proposal would be a disproportionate addition, it is necessary to firstly understand what constitutes the original building. The glossary at Annex 2 of the Framework provides a definition of ‘original building’ as a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was built originally. There is nothing in the development plan to suggest that a different approach should be taken in the particular local circumstances. The Council have not indicated what they consider to be the original building; the appellants suggest that the baseline should be all of the original farm buildings that previously existed at the appeal site.

From the evidence before me, it is the L shaped built form that was converted to form the dwelling that now exists at the site. While the detached barns would have been closely related in use to the L shaped development, they have not been shown to have formed part of the conversion. Indeed, the appellants indicate that they were demolished as part of the conversion. As such there is no clear evidence that they should reasonably be included as the original building for the purposes of the exception at Framework paragraph 154 c). The original building is therefore the L shaped development that was converted to form the dwelling.

The Framework does not provide a definition of ‘disproportionate additions’, therefore it is 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. The Council indicate that the proposal would be a disproportionate addition to the traditional scale and form of the former dairy based on a cumulative volumetric increase of 44% but has not shown how it arrived at this figure.

However, irrespective of any mathematical calculation, the development plan does not require a threshold approach to this exception, and the Framework refers to size. As such there are a variety of ways of assessing and measuring proportionality. Taking into account the overall cumulative increase of the conversion, detached garage and the proposal in terms of volume, floorspace, footprint and external dimensions, the appeal scheme would not result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. In coming to this view, I have also considered the context of the original building relative to its plot size and the overall extent of the visual perception.

To conclude, the proposal would comply with Framework paragraph 154 c) and NLP policies ST7 and ST8. It would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and it follows that the proposal would not be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt or to the purposes of including land within it. A case for very special circumstances is not therefore required.

The appeal site is located within the open countryside which has a rural character and accommodates a dwelling, and a detached garage that is currently under construction. The surrounding clusters of residential development on either side of the road have a generally sporadic form, comprised of buildings of predominantly traditional design and appearance.

The proposal’s scale would be subservient to the appeal property, and its appearance would be read as a lightweight link from the property to the garage. On this basis, while in plan form it would alter the L shaped property, at street level the visual impression of the proposal would not overwhelm its overall scale and massing. Consequently, the prevailing pattern of development of the surrounding area would remain.

The proposal’s location relative to the alignment of the road and surrounding development would mean that it would not be prominent. The scheme would not be dominant in longer range views on approach in either direction because it would largely be screened by the appeal property and garage. Taking account of the simple design and modest scale, in short range views, while contemporary in the context of the appeal property and surrounding development, the use of glazing would not aesthetically compete with the traditional appearance of the area. Overall, the proposal would be unobtrusive in its context and would not detract from the rural, residential character of its surroundings and would make a positive contribution to the creation of high quality, beautiful buildings and places as required by the Framework.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, including the appeal property and would be in accordance with NLP policies HOU9, QOP1, QOP2 and ENV1. Amongst other things, these policies require development to be well related to, and respect and complement the style and character of, the existing dwelling and character of the area. It should make a positive contribution to its surroundings, protecting Northumberland’s distinctive and valued natural and built environments.

It is necessary to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans to provide clarity. Information contained on the submitted plans in relation to materials are general specifications only and so a condition requiring details of the external materials is reasonable and necessary to protect the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above the proposal accords with the development plan, read as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.