Appeal 6004451

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 a) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; b) the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and c) if the scheme is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, as to amount to very special circumstances required to justify it.

The National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) sets out, amongst other things, that development is inappropriate in the Green Belt, unless it falls within a given set of exceptions. One is the extension or alteration of a building provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Policy JP-G9 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan Document 2022 to 2039, 2024 (JP) reflects the stance of the Framework. Neither defines what disproportionate is or set any benchmark in terms of size of extensions. It is therefore a matter of judgement.

The current development is a replacement of a previous building which has since been subdivided into two properties. The original building benefits from an existing rear two-storey addition, and permission for a further rear two-storey extension is extant. A detached outbuilding is also positioned within the plot. The site is surrounded by open rural views on three sides with a small cluster of agricultural buildings to the north. A public footpath crosses the southern and eastern parts of the appeal site.

The appellant contends that the appeal proposals should be regarded as the first extensions to the property by virtue of the subdivision of the original building into two dwellings. While it is acknowledged that the original replacement building has subsequently been subdivided, this does not alter the baseline against which proportionality must be assessed. Paragraph 154 c) of the Framework is clear that extensions within the Green Belt must be assessed against the size of the original building, which is defined as the building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed thereafter, as it was originally built. The fact that the building has since been subdivided does not create a new “original” building for the purposes of Green Belt policy.

The main parties disagree on the extent of additional built form arising from the appeal proposal. The appellant’s assessment is largely reliant on footprint calculations and fails to adequately consider the overall scale and volume of development, which are as important factors when assessing disproportionality within the Green Belt.

From my observations, the existing rear extension, detached outbuilding and extant permission already amount to disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building given their combined scale and land take in the context thereof. It can therefore only follow that the appeal scheme would contribute more built form thereto. As such, it would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This would conflict with both the identification of such by the Framework and the aims of Policy JP-G9 of the JP as set out above.

Openness is a fundamental attribute of the Green Belt and comprises both spatial and visual elements. Spatial openness is generally taken to refer to the absence of built form. The appeal proposal would introduce a two-storey addition the full width of the dwelling and a substantial pitched roof single storey extension protruding to the front. This would result in the introduction of built form in areas that are currently undeveloped, leading to a clear increase in the overall height, bulk and volume of the building.

Given the site’s rural and largely exposed setting, together with the presence of a public footpath that runs through the appeal site, the additional massing would be readily perceptible in views of the site. The proposed extensions would erode the sense of openness by introducing a notable amount of new built form, thereby increasing the spatial occupation of the site and intensifying the visual presence of development within an area characterised by sporadic and dispersed buildings. As a result, the proposal would result in harm to both the spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt by unacceptably, and unavoidably, reducing it.

This would result in further conflict with the Framework and the aims of the aforementioned policies as far as they align therewith. Harm to the openness of the Green Belt would be in addition to that caused by the proposals’ inappropriateness.

The appellant suggests that the proposed development would result in an improvement to the appearance of the dwelling through the replacement of existing uPVC boarding with stone materials. However, based on the submitted plans and my site visit, I cannot identify any uPVC boarding that would be replaced as part of the proposal. In any event, the use of high‐quality and appropriate materials would be expected as a matter of course in any scheme to extend a dwelling. As such, this factor carries neutral weight and does not weigh in favour of the proposal.

The Council expressed substantive concerns about the design and appearance of the proposals in the delegated report. This has not however translated to a reason for refusal. It is unclear as to why, but the appellant has not responded to the matter. Whether or not I disagree with the Council in their assessment in this regard, it would not change my findings on Green Belt matters.

A condition requiring the extension to be physically subservient may mitigate concerns here, specifically to do with the massing of the proposal in design and appearance terms in isolation. The appeal process should not however be used to evolve or revise a scheme. The appeal must be determined based on the proposal originally considered by the Council and made available for public consultation.

The appeal scheme would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would result in a reduction to its openness. This is worthy of substantial weight. Taken together, the other considerations would be insufficient to clearly outweigh the totality of the harms I have found, such that very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan as I have set it out above and there are no other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. 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.