Appeal 6004229

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey glazed porch to the front of the property, at [site address] , Holmesfield, Derbyshire [postcode] , in accordance with the application, Ref 25/00710/FLH, 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 the following approved plans: HGL-FST-PL-205 Proposed Site Plan HGL-FST-PL-206 Proposed Ground Floor Plan HGL-FST-PL-207 [name]

An application has been made by the appellant for an award of costs against the Council. That application is the subject of a separate decision.

Based on the Council’s reasons for refusing permission, and the other submissions made, the main issues in the appeal are: ▪ whether the proposed scheme would constitute ‘inappropriate development’ in terms of Green Belt policy; ▪ and the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site lies within an area of green belt, as defined on the [name] for the district. Under Policy S10 of the Local Plan1, most types of new buildings in the green belt are to be treated as inappropriate. However, the policy allows for various exceptions, including for extensions or alterations, where the development does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. This policy appears to me to accord with the relevant provisions of national green belt policy, in paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF).

In the present case, the appeal property is said to have been originally built in the 1980s, as a barn and stables. [name] 2024, permission was granted for its conversion and extension to form a dwelling (23/00988/FL). That approved development included a single storey rear extension, and also a small addition to the front, within what was previously a partially enclosed space under the overhanging roof. Those works now appear to have been largely completed. The present appeal scheme would add a glazed porch to the front, measuring 6.3m x 1.5m, with a lean-to roof of 2.2 - 2.8m in height.

According to the appellant’s figures, the volume of the original building was 444 m3, and the rear extension approved under 23/00988/FL added 59 m3 or 13%. The new porch now proposed would add a further 25m3, making a cumulative total of 84m3, or 19%. These figures are supported by a plan, ‘Area and [name], showing the breakdown between the building’s various elements, with summarised area and volume measurements for each. In contrast, the Council suggests that the existing extensions have already increased the building’s volume by 34%, and that with the appeal proposal this would become 41%.

The appellant’s figures are not necessarily conclusive, because the detailed measurements and calculations underlying them have not been evidenced. But nevertheless, the diagrammatic plan produced does contain sufficient detail to make clear the basic methodology, and to show that the total increase that has been arrived at appears credible. Whereas, the Council’s figures are presented simply as percentages, with no actual volume measurements or other detailed information of any kind. Furthermore, as the appellant points out, the figure that the Council now suggests for the previous extensions is substantially greater than that which was calculated in the officer’s report on application 23/00988/FL; this apparent inconsistency is unexplained and unacknowledged. The Council’s figures are therefore unsubstantiated.

The appellant’s 19% figure for the overall increase is apparently contradicted elsewhere in their evidence, where an alternative figure of 21% appears2. Mathematically the smaller of these two seems to follow more closely from the other figures presented in the Area and [name], but given the minor nature of the discrepancy, it seems to me that it would make little difference if I were to adopt the larger. The appellant’s figures also appear to exclude the small front extension that was part of the February 2024 approval. But again, given its size, this omission is not of any great significance. 1 The North East Derbyshire Local Plan, adopted in November 2021 2 Paras 5.6 and 5.11 of the appellant’s statement

Considering the relative strength of the evidence on each side therefore, whilst the appellant’s figures are not wholly decisive, they are nevertheless more convincing than those of the Council. After adjusting for the two small discrepancies that I have referred to above, it seems to me that the overall cumulative increase in volume resulting from the previous extensions and the present proposal would be, at most, something still well below 30%. To my mind, an increase on this scale would clearly not be disproportionate to the original building.

Furthermore, as the Council itself acknowledges, even if I were to accept the Council’s own figures in full, there is nothing in planning policy or guidance that requires an increase of 41%, or any other figure, to be automatically deemed disproportionate. Nor indeed is there anything that requires proportionality to be judged purely in mathematical terms. In this case, the previous rear extension is a single storey structure of a relatively modest depth, across no more than about half the width of the building as a whole, with its flat roof set below the original main eaves line. The existing front extension, contained wholly under a secondary part of the original roof, is of a similar width, and little more than 1m deep. The development now proposed would be small, and being fully glazed, its appearance would be insubstantial. To my mind, even when these three small-scale additions are viewed together, in visual terms, their combined magnitude would be relatively minor. Other than in mathematical terms, there is nothing in the Council’s submissions that suggests any other reason for considering the cumulative result to be disproportionate. Consequently, having regard to the particular characteristics of the appeal property, and those of the development now proposed, it seems to me that even if the Council’s mathematical calculations could be substantiated, in this case that would not alter my view that the cumulative result would not be disproportionate.

For these reasons, I find that the proposed scheme would not constitute inappropriate development in terms of green belt policy. The development would thus accord with Policy S10 of the Local Plan and the relevant provisions of the NPPF.

The appeal site is located in the countryside and in an Area of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity (AMES). In the countryside, Local Plan Policy LC5 requires residential extensions to respect the scale, proportions and materials of the existing property, and Policy SS9 seeks to protect the character of the landscape. In the AMES, Policy SDC3 requires all developments to conserve and enhance the landscape, and to have regard to the Derbyshire Landscape Character Assessment (the LCA).

In the present case, I saw on my visit that [site address] is a rural lane, running southwest from Holmesfield through undulating farmland, towards the Peak District National Park, affording some attractive views towards the distant hills in that direction. The appeal property is set well back from the lane, behind a stone boundary wall, and at a lower level than the carriageway. Consequently, in medium and longer views, the building is seen as a minor element in the wider landscape, and in close range views it is largely screened by the contours and the wall. Whilst the conversion works to the building have been carried out to a high standard, its residential nature is clearly apparent.

In so far as the new porch would be visible, or partly visible, it would appear as nothing more than a lightweight and subordinate adjunct to the existing building. The design would be, to my mind, in keeping with the converted building’s new purpose, as a residential dwelling. The proposed materials, comprising glazing within an oak timber frame, would be of a quality matching that of the remainder of the dwelling. And the translucent nature of the glazing would allow the original building form to remain legible. In all these respects, the proposed development seems to me to be appropriately designed for the building and its setting.

I note that in the LCA, the appeal site falls within the wooded slopes and valleys of the [name] and [name] character area. Glazed porches are not noted as a characteristic feature of that area or landscape type. But in this case, for the reasons that I have identified, the proposed development would not obstruct or intrude into any views of the landscape, nor would it be out of place in the context of an existing residential property. Nor would it harm the character of the building.

For these reasons, I find that the development would have no significant adverse effects on the area’s character or appearance. In this regard, the proposed scheme would respect the existing building in accordance with Policy LC5, and would conserve the essential qualities and distinctiveness of the landscape and the AMES, as sought by Policies SS9 and SCD3.

As set out above, I have found that the proposed development would not conflict with green belt policy, nor would it cause harm to the character or appearance of the area. The scheme would therefore accord with the relevant policies of the

The scheme would also be likely to generate economic benefits to the local area, in terms of construction and the supply chain. These benefits would be modest but nevertheless add some further weight in favour. No other material considerations have been identified that weigh against.

In these circumstances, it follows that the appeal should be allowed. In granting permission, I have imposed two conditions, as set out at paragraph 1 above. These are necessary to accord with the relevant legislation, and to ensure certainty as to the approved details.