Appeal 6003920

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.

For the purposes of the banner heading, I have taken the description of the proposed development from the application form. However, I have removed the reference to it being a resubmission of a previous planning application as that is not a description of development.

The main issues are: i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate 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) if the proposal would be inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to very special circumstances necessary to justify it.

Policy CS5 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan Core Strategy (2013) (CS) confirms amongst other things that proposals for development in the Green Belt will need to comply with the provisions of the Framework or relevant local plan policies in the CS. In that regard, Paragraph 154 of the Framework establishes that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, other than in specified exceptions. One exception is 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 dwelling.

What constitutes a disproportionate addition is not defined within the Framework. However, Policy PSP7 of the South Gloucestershire Local: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (2017) (LP) confirms that the larger a building becomes in excess of 30% over and above the original size, the less likely new extensions will be considered ‘proportionate’ and that additions resulting in a volume increase of 50% or more of the original building would most likely be considered a disproportionate addition.

Based on the evidence provided by the main parties, including the planning history of the appeal site, the original dwelling has previously been extended. The Council suggests that those extensions equate to significantly more than a 50% increase and would be nearer to a 100% increase in volume relative to the original building. The appellant has not disputed this and indicates that the proposed development would result in a cumulative volume increase of approximately 200%. Either figure indicates a considerable volume increase over the original building particularly when considered against the volume allowances in PSP7. In these respects, I find that the proposal would contribute to disproportionate additions relative to the size of the original building.

Consequently, 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 the essential characteristics of Green Belts, which are their openness and permanence. It has been held in the [address] that openness is generally held to refer to an absence of buildings or development. Openness has both a spatial dimension, and a visual aspect.

From a spatial perspective, the extensions would increase the mass and footprint of the house. The single detached garage would replace a double garage, thereby slightly increasing openness on that particular part of the site. Whilst the extensions to the dwelling would be located to the rear, they would include first floor elements and roof alterations that would be appreciable from [address]. Overall, there would be modest effects on openness.

The appeal site comprises of a large detached, two-storey dwelling house with a detached double garage, detached single garage and detached store. These are set within a large plot, which overlooks a field to the rear. The dwelling is set back from the boundary with the highway. There are a number of detached properties in large plots along this section of [address] with mature vegetation commonplace and frequent views to adjoining fields. These spacious and verdant characteristics provide for a semi-rural character.

Even accounting for the overall mass of the extensions, the porch and the single storey extension would be of a subservient appearance and the first floor extension would incorporate a complementary hipped roof form. Together with their predominant siting to the rear, the extensions would result in a large dwelling of harmonious design. Furthermore, the proposed single garage would be constructed on the current site of the double garage and together with the removal of the two other modest outbuildings would not have any significant effect on the appearance of the site.

Therefore, the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. In that regard, it would comply with Policy CS1 of the CS and PSP38 which requires development proposals to demonstrate that siting, form, height, massing, amongst other things, are informed by and respect the character and building lines of the site.

The appellant contends that there would be an overall reduction, in the total volume of built structures on the wider site. However, the figures indicate a very modest reduction in volume of 3.07m3. Furthermore, the single storey outbuildings which are proposed for removal, some of which are set well away from the dwelling, are not comparable to a further increase in bulk, footprint and floorspace, including at first floor level, to the dwelling which has already been substantially extended and as set out would be inappropriate by definition.

Moreover, in the absence evidence to indicate otherwise, there is the potential that permitted development rights could be utilised in the future to build replacement outbuildings. As advised in the Planning Practice Guidance a condition to remove such rights will rarely pass the test of necessity and should only be used in exceptional circumstances. Paragraph 55 of the Framework also states that planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification for doing so. In the event that permitted development rights do exist, there is no more robust mechanism before me, such as a legal agreement, to prevent outbuildings being erected. Therefore, I attach limited weight to these matters.

Having regard to the development plan and national planning policy, the proposal comprises inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The Framework says that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should only be approved in very special circumstances. As part of the assessment, I have also found that there would also be a modest effect on the openness of the Green Belt.

Notwithstanding that the development would in design terms have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, I must attach substantial weight to the harm to the Green Belt. 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. This is a high hurdle for a development proposal to overcome.

The other considerations put forward in favour of the proposal carry no more than limited weight.

In conclusion and on balance, the substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm is not clearly outweighed by other considerations and therefore the very special circumstances needed to justify the proposed development do not exist. For the reasons given I therefore conclude 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.