Appeal 6004402

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.

The main issues are: • 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; • the effect on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.

The appeal site falls within the Green Belt. Paragraph 154 of the Framework indicates that development in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, save for a number of exceptions. The relevant exception in this case is ‘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 BDP4 of the Bromsgrove District Plan 2011-2030 (2017) (LP) is consistent with the Framework in terms of resisting inappropriate development in the Green Belt. However, it defines proportionate as being no greater than a maximum of a 40% increase of the original dwelling or [address] metres (sqm) combined.

The appeal dwelling has been previously extended. The figures provided by the Council, which are undisputed by the appellant, indicate that when combined with the previous additions to the property, the extensions would result in a total increase in floorspace of 132% which is considerably more than 140sqm.

I acknowledge that the property was extended some time ago and that the appeal proposal when considered alone would result in only a 35% increase in floorspace compared to the existing dwelling. However, the glossary in the Framework is clear that ‘original building’ means ‘a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after that date, as it was built originally’. Therefore, for the purposes of determining whether extensions and alterations would be disproportionate, the cumulative effect of previous extensions and the proposed development must be considered together. I recognise that the measure of proportionality is not a solely mathematical one. Nonetheless, the extensions proposed would be disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

The proposal would therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, at odds with the Framework and the aim of LP Policy BDP4 insofar as it resists inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The Framework sets out that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; with the essential characteristics of Green Belts being their openness and their permanence.

The increased mass and footprint of the proposal would evidently reduce openness from a spatial perspective. In visual terms, the gable extension would add bulk at first floor level, making the building appear notably more substantial. Given the enclosed nature of the site, the extensions would be largely screened from the road, which would help to reduce the visual effects on openness. Even so, the proposed changes to the front of the property would be clearly visible from the road when the entrance gate to the property is open.

Taking both spatial and visual effects into account, the proposal would diminish the openness of the Green Belt, albeit by a limited degree. Even so, it would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt.

The appeal property comprises a detached dwelling set within a generous plot. As set out above, and on the basis of the evidence before me, the dwelling has been subject to a number of extensions and alterations, including additions to the rear and side, enlargement above the garage, and the formation of dormer windows. Although these works are cumulatively substantial there is a consistency in their volumes, forms and arrangement which is sensitive to the house, with a discernible hierarchy between the original form and the later additions. As a result, there is a coherence, a spatial and architectural balance or unity in the appearance of the house.

While its ridge height would be marginally lower than the existing gable, the proposed gable extension would replace the characterful main pitch of the roof which sweeps down to ground floor eaves with a bulky, paired arrangement of large gables, this arrangement overpowering the present balance across the house and squeezing the remaining front dormer between them. This would be exacerbated by the addition of the single storey extension, which would span more than half the width of the front elevation. Taken together, the proposed extensions would result in a house that appears excessive in scale and visually unbalanced, to the detriment of its architectural character.

I recognise that the detailed design aspects of the proposal, including the windows, would broadly reflect those of the host dwelling. In addition, the proposed Juliet balcony and pillared doorway to the rear elevation, although introducing new design elements, would not in themselves harmfully detract from the appearance of the original dwelling. However, such detailing cannot mitigate the fundamental concerns arising from the design of the development proposed.

While the appeal site may be well screened from public vantage points, the extensions would not be entirely obscured from public views. In any event, limited visibility does not negate the need for good design, nor is any such distinction made in LP Policy BDP19 or the Framework. This is not therefore sufficient reason to set aside the findings of harm in this regard.

For these reasons, the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling. It would therefore conflict with LP Policy BDP19 which requires good design and for development to enhance the character and distinctiveness of the local area. For the same reasons, it would also be inconsistent with the design objectives of the SPD and the Framework.

The appellant contends that the scale of development which could be undertaken under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) establishes a fallback position which makes the appeal proposal acceptable by comparison. Reference is made to the potential construction of a substantial detached outbuilding, front and rear single storey extensions, and a one or two storey upward extension.

In considering the weight to be given to a fallback, I must be satisfied that there is a real prospect, rather than a theoretical possibility, that the alternative development would be carried out if the appeal were dismissed.

With regard to the detached outbuilding, I accept that permitted development rights could allow for a sizeable single storey structure within the garden of the property. Such an outbuilding might reasonably meet a desire for additional garage or storage space. However, it would be unlikely to address wider objectives relating to the enlargement and internal reconfiguration of the house. Consequently, in the absence of clear evidence that such an outbuilding would be pursued if the appeal were unsuccessful, there is not a greater than theoretical prospect of its implementation. This fallback therefore attracts limited weight.

The appellant also refers to permitted development rights for a front porch and single storey rear extensions. While the Council disputes some of these claims, such works could offer some internal improvement and, if the appeal were dismissed, a modest porch and rear extension may reasonably be pursued. However, given their more modest scale, their single storey form, and predominantly rear siting, their effect on the Green Belt and on the appearance of the house would not be comparable to this proposal. Accordingly, I afford this fallback limited weight.

Reference is also made to the potential fallback of options for an upward extension. However, I have not been provided with any substantive evidence, such as a certificate of lawfulness or technical plans or assessments to demonstrate that either of these options would be structurally or economically feasible, or that this would meet the internal layout objectives of the scheme before me. Accordingly, this scenario represents no more than a theoretical possibility and attracts limited weight.

Moreover, there is no indication that the appellant would be willing to relinquish permitted development rights, nor any means to secure this. In those circumstances, the outbuilding and extensions could potentially be carried out in addition to the appeal scheme, which further diminishes the weight that I attach to the fallback position.

The appellant contends that very special circumstances arise because the plot is enclosed and the site does not form part of the open countryside. However, such characteristics are common of many sites within the Green Belt and are not, in themselves, exceptional factors. Given my findings above, I attribute this limited weight.

The appellant has indicated that other properties in the Green Belt have been substantially extended. However, I have not been provided the full details of these examples or the circumstances in which they may have achieved planning permission. The Council’s call for development sites in the Green Belt is also a statutory consultation process and does not therefore conflict with their assessment of the proposed development. Moreover, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the site should be considered as constituting grey belt. As such, I afford these matters limited weight.

[name] do not doubt that the appellant would have been willing to provide a bat survey, had the Council requested this, this matter is not disputed by the Council and is not a reason for refusal on their decision. This is therefore a neutral matter in the consideration of this appeal, as is a lack of harm with regard to access, drainage, and flooding.

I acknowledge that the appeal scheme represents a second iteration of the proposed extension. However, a revised scheme does not necessarily equate to one that is acceptable in planning terms. [name] acknowledge the appellant’s comments that there was a lack of communication from the Council during the application process, such matters do not constitute a reason to allow the appeal. Similarly, any perceived rigid application of planning policies, or the nature of the comments made by the Parish Council, are not determinative matters in this appeal, which has been considered on its planning merits.

The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should only be approved in very special circumstances. I have also found that the proposal would result in some limited harm to openness and would cause harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

Paragraph 153 of the Framework specifies that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness, and that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Taken in their totality, the other considerations presented in this appeal carry limited weight and do not clearly outweigh the harm identified. As such, the very special circumstances that would be needed to justify the proposal do not exist. I therefore recommend 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.