Appeal 6003735

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: i) whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; ii) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and iii) if the development would be inappropriate, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.

The appeal relates to a detached bungalow which is located within the Green Belt. The National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) advises that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate, unless specified exceptions apply. These include 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.

Saved Policy 1 of the City and District of St Albans District Local Plan Review 1994 (‘the LPR’) defines the Green Belt and states that permission will not be given for development for purposes other than those which it lists unless very special circumstances exist. It does not refer specifically to extensions, but saved Policy 13 of the LPR notes that extensions in the Green Belt may be permitted unless the scale or visual impact upon the building as originally constructed would create a building of significantly larger or different character. These policies pre-date and are not wholly consistent with the terms of the Framework, but in these respects, they conform broadly to the thrust of national Green Belt policy.

The Framework does not define ‘disproportionate additions’, and nor have I been directed to provision in the LPR setting out what is meant by a building of ‘significantly larger’ character. However, the Council’s Residential Extensions and [name] in the Green Belt Supplementary Planning Guidance 2004 (‘the SPG’) outlines a number of criteria that proposals will be assessed against.

Of these criteria, (i) provides that for side and rear extensions, an increase in volume of between 90m3 and 180m3, or an increase in floorspace of between 20% and 40% (subject to a maximum increase in the cubic content of 300m 3) may be acceptable. There is no cubic content or percentage increase guidance for other extensions, but the SPG advises that the size permitted will generally be considerably smaller than with side and rear extensions. At (ii), the SPG indicates that the cumulative impact of any previous and proposed extensions will be assessed.

The appellants have not disputed the Council’s assessment indicating that the proposal would result in a cumulative increase in floorspace of around 244% and an increase in volume of approximately 1,046m3. On that basis, the proposal would far exceed the guidelines advocated by the SPG for both volume and floorspace increases through side and rear extensions, even in cases where a proposal otherwise performed well against other SPG criteria.

The SPG notes that the guideline ranges for the size of side and rear extensions are approximately 1.3 to 2.6 times the permitted development limits for semi-detached and detached houses. Since the SPG was produced, changes have been made to permitted development including introduction of rights for larger home extensions and upward extensions through construction of an additional storey to dwellings. I accept that these rights may, subject to prior approval processes, provide for larger increases to dwellings, including those within Green Belt, than were envisaged at the time of the SPG. Be that as it may, the appellant has provided no clear evidence to demonstrate that permitted development rights could or would be likely to provide for increases in size approaching, far less comparable to, the considerable magnitude that would result from the appeal proposal.

Even if I were to accept that some flexibility in application of the guidelines at (i) of the SPG would be appropriate in light of changes to permitted development rights, I am not therefore persuaded that the increases proposed in this case would be justified or reasonable. In my judgement, increases of the level proposed here would be plainly disproportionate to the host dwelling and would undoubtedly result in a significantly larger building.

Furthermore, the proposal includes a substantial increase in the width of the upper part of the dwelling, as well as an increase in its overall height. The design of the roof would also include a central flat section at the ridge, gables to the sides and front and rear gables and dormers. Overall, it would add considerable bulk and mass to the upper part of of the dwelling which I consider would appear as a large and disproportionate addition to the building.

On that basis and notwithstanding amendments to permitted development rights since the SPG was produced, I find that the proposal would amount to a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original dwelling, and a building which is significantly larger. The proposal would not therefore meet the terms of the exception specified in the Framework, and it would be contrary to Policy 13 of the LPR.

Turning to the other criteria within the SPG, (iii) relates to the type of extension and includes comment that two storey side extensions can often have a detrimental impact on the openness of the Green Belt and may therefore be resisted. Furthermore, significantly raising the eaves or increasing the ridge height or bulk of a roof will normally be seen to create a building of different character and will be resisted. At (iv), the SPG indicates that the position of extensions in relation to public viewpoints will be a material factor for consideration. The provision at (v) advises that gaps between properties can play an important role in maintaining the open aspect of the area and providing views of the open countryside and that applications to extend into gaps that do provide such a function, both single and two-storeys, will normally be resisted.

In this case, development currently spans the full width of the appeal site. However, while the central part of the dwelling has a hipped roof, this is set well in from the boundaries beyond single-storey sections of modest height which afford views from the street through towards the open garden backdrop. Consequently, there is a clear impression of gaps at the upper level which contribute to the open aspect of the area.

While the proposal would reduce the width of the dwelling at ground floor level, I have noted above that there would be a substantial increase in the width of the upper level and that the proposal would add considerable bulk and mass to the roof. This would be clearly apparent from [address]. In my view, the resulting encroachment of development into the gaps between the dwelling and its neighbours at higher level would be far more significant and conspicuous than the modest increase in spacing at the ground floor level and would notably diminish open views through the site. Overall, this would cause marked detriment to the openness of the Green Belt here.

I consider the requirements of saved Policy 72 of the LPR which criterion (vi) of the SPG notes can be of particular importance to extensions within Green Belt in more detail under my second main issue. I also have no firm reason to disagree with the Council that the criteria at (vii) and (viii) of the SPG which relate to landscaping and tree preservation and conservation areas and listed buildings would not be directly applicable in this case.

For the reasons above however, I conclude that the proposal would be inappropriate development which the Framework states is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and which should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The proposal would additionally cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

Near to the appeal site, this side of the section of [address] which runs broadly perpendicular to [address] is predominantly characterised by detached bungalows. The ridgelines of the main roofs to these dwellings generally step up along the street as land levels increase away from the junction with [address].

I have noted above that the proposal includes an increase in the height of the appeal dwelling. The plans indicate that the ridgeline would sit above that of the neighbour at [address] which is on a higher land level, and significantly above the roof of the neighbour at [address] which is on lower land. This relationship would result in marked disruption to the characteristic stepped roofline along this part of the street.

In addition, the substantial increase in the width of the dwelling at roof level and the design incorporating a central flat section to the ridge, gables to either side and front and rear gables and dormers would add considerable bulk and mass to the roof. Based on my observations, the scale of the roof would stand out notably against the far more modest bungalows which provide the immediate context to the site. The relatively close proximity of the roof and side gable ends to the site’s side boundaries would further exacerbate the visual impact of the contrast in the height and scale of the appeal dwelling against these neighbours.

Although different to the closest neighbouring bungalows, the proposed materials and architectural style of the dwelling would not be out of keeping with development that I saw on other parts of [address]. I also saw examples of two-storey dwellings including [address] opposite the site. Even so, the development would be appreciated in the context of its immediate surroundings on this part of [address]. Within this context, I find that the height of the dwelling above both neighbours resulting in a departure from the typical stepped pattern of the roofline in conjunction with the incongruous bulk of the dwelling’s roof would cause it to appear unduly dominant and it would stand out as an unsympathetic and discordant feature in this part of the street scene.

I acknowledge a permitted development right for construction of additional storeys to dwellings which the appellant asserts would apply to the appeal dwelling and others on [address]. From the information before me however, and setting aside that the right is also subject to a prior approval process, it is far from clear that the appeal development would comply with the restrictions and conditions which apply to this right so as to comprise permitted development. In particular, I note a requirement that any additional storey would need to be constructed only on the ‘principal part’ of the dwellinghouse which excludes any front, side or rear extension of a lower height, whether this forms part of the original dwellinghouse or is a subsequent addition. In the current appeal, the proposed roof would in part be over lower single-storey sections to the sides of the dwelling. It also appears from the submitted plans that the roof pitch would not be the same as the roof pitch of the existing dwellinghouse which is an additional condition of the permitted development right.

Even if it would be possible to construct an additional storey to the dwelling under permitted development rights, it has not therefore been demonstrated that any such development would be comparable to the appeal scheme including in respect of its overall bulk and mass and the proximity of the roof to neighbouring dwellings which are factors that I have found would contribute to the unsympathetic nature of the proposal. This limits the weight that I afford to a potential fallback under permitted development rights.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposal would cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area and it would conflict with saved Policies 69 and 72 of the LPR and Policy D4 of the Sandridge Parish Neighbourhood Plan 2021 (‘the NP’). Amongst other things, these policies include requirements broadly seeking design which takes into account the scale and character of its surroundings; extensions which relate to the scale, character and appearance of the street; and a scale and height in keeping with existing and adjacent buildings.

I acknowledge that the proposal would provide additional and enhanced accommodation for occupiers of the dwelling. However, the weight that I afford to this factor is limited in the absence of any firm evidence to demonstrate that the dwelling could not reasonably remain in residential use in the absence of the proposal. In addition, I have already noted that it has not been demonstrated that comparable development would be possible under permitted development rights which limits the weight that I afford to this as a potential fallback to the appeal scheme.

The Council has not raised concerns about the amendment to the driveway or the installation of solar panels shown on the plans and I have no firm reason to find differently in respect of these elements when taken in isolation. However, I have found above that the proposal would be inappropriate development which is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and which the Framework sets out should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It would also cause some harm to the openness of the Green Belt. In accordance with the Framework, I give this harm substantial weight. The proposal would additionally cause unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The Framework indicates 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.

Even taken together, I find that the weight of the other considerations advanced in this case does not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development in the Green Belt. The proposal would therefore conflict with the Framework, as well as with saved Policies 1 and 13 of the LPR.

Given this conflict and the conflict with saved Policies 69 and 72 of the LPR and Policy D4 of the NP, I find that the proposal would conflict with the development plan when it is read as a whole. Furthermore, it would not contribute to the achievement of sustainable development as sought by the Framework.

For the reasons given above, I find that the proposal would conflict with the development plan when it is read as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that a decision contrary to the development plan should be reached. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.