Appeal 6004631

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; the effect of the proposal on b) the openness of the Green Belt; and c) the character and appearance of the area; and d) 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.

In regard to Green Belt development, the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) sets out, amongst other things, that such is inappropriate unless it falls within a given set of exceptions. The Council has assessed the proposal against paragraphs 153 and 154 of the Framework, with paragraph 154 c) relating to 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.

Guidance contained in the Householder Supplementary Planning Document, 2012 (SPD) states that where proposals result in an addition of over 30% of the original cubic volume, they are likely to be considered disproportionate. Both main parties accept that cumulatively, previous extensions likely exceed this 30% threshold. The proposed development alone would increase the volume of the existing building (note, not the original building) by 37.5%.

Taking these matters together and in the context of what has gone before, the proposed development would amount to disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. As such, it would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This would conflict with both the identification of such by the Framework and guidance contained in the SPD 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, although partly subterranean, would still introduce a substantial above‐ground addition extending outwards from the existing dwelling, resulting in a single‐storey extension where no development currently exists.

Given the site’s rural, hillside location, the increase in development would inevitably result in a notable reduction in both the spatial and visual aspects of the Green Belt’s openness. It would intensify the presence of built development in an area characterised by sporadic and dispersed form, causing unacceptable and unavoidable reduction in the openness of the Green Belt in both aspects. This would be additional harm to the Green Belt, as well as that caused by its inappropriateness. It would result in further conflict with the Framework.

The appeal property is a traditionally detailed, converted building of simple, linear form, constructed in sandstone with a slate roof and relatively generous window openings. It occupies an elevated and exposed position within open countryside, with extensive views across the surrounding rural landscape, particularly to the north and east. Built development in the vicinity is limited and dispersed, comprising a large, detached dwelling to the south and a small cluster of dwellings to the west.

The proposed extension would introduce a substantial, flat-roofed projecting element with deep overhangs, that would depart from the established linear form of the host dwelling. Its scale and extensive glazing would create a markedly different solid‐to‐void balance compared to the predominantly traditionally well-proportioned openings within stone walling, of the existing dwelling. As a result, rather than reading as a subservient or complementary addition, it would appear visually prominent and incongruous, undermining the coherence and architectural legibility of the original building.

Consequently, the development would harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, it would conflict with Policies DS1 and DS3 of the Local Plan for the Bradford District, [name] 2017. As well as guidance contained in the SPD. Amongst other things, these require development to achieve good design and be appropriate to their context in terms of layout, scale and materials and do not detract from the character of the original building or the Green Belt.

A fallback position afforded by Class E of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) and as confirmed by certificates of lawfulness for proposed development has been advanced. They comprise a single-storey outbuilding with a pitched roof located in very close proximity to the rear elevation of the appeal property, together with a detached pitched-roof garage to the side.

This would result in a detached structure of notable scale, positioned hard against the rear elevation of the host dwelling, forming a substantial mass directly in front of principal rear-facing openings. This arrangement would introduce a pronounced sense of enclosure, appearing as an overbearing wall of built form when viewed from ground floor habitable rooms. Furthermore, it would substantially restrict the penetration of natural light to these rooms and effectively remove views towards the open countryside beyond. These effects would result in an unacceptable standard of living conditions of occupiers than the appeal proposal, notwithstanding that the latter also introduces additional built form.

Although differing in form and footprint, the certificated schemes and the appeal proposal introduce roughly comparable levels of bulk and volume when viewed in the context of the host dwelling and its surroundings. The appeal proposal adopts a lower, more projecting form, while the rear fallback is wider and higher but nevertheless positioned close to the dwelling. Neither would meaningfully reduce the overall spatial or visual impact on openness when compared with the other.

In this context, appeal decision 3169282 carries limited weight. It turned on a clear preference for a scheme that demonstrably reduced harm relative to a fallback. In the present case, no such clear advantage arises. Both schemes give rise to similar substantive harm to the Green Belt, and the fallback would additionally introduce significant amenity disbenefits. As such, it cannot reasonably be contended that allowing the appeal scheme would avoid a demonstrably worse outcome all things considered. Irrespective of whether one would consider the proposed extension sufficiently comparable to the rear outbuilding scheme as a ‘trade off’, the one at the side could still come forwards given it benefits from a certificate, and it’s siting would be unaffected by the appeal scheme. I am not aware of any mechanism available to disallow this from happening.

In the case of 3339761, the Inspector found that the extension appeared relatively discrete. Its projection being offset by the sloping ground and adjacent raised patio terrace, and it appearing only slightly larger than what was previously there. This appeal included a fallback position described as a single-storey rear extension and rear outbuilding. However, I have not been provided with sufficient details or plans of that fallback scenario to enable a meaningful comparison with the appeal proposal before me, particularly in respect of scale, siting and visual relationship to the host dwelling.

The appellant has indicated a willingness to accept a condition removing permitted development rights for outbuildings in order to ensure control over future development. However, I afford this limited weight. The removal of permitted development rights would not, in itself, overcome the fundamental harm arising from the appeal proposal, nor would it address the identified inappropriateness of development within the Green Belt. Such a condition would primarily serve to restrict hypothetical future development rather than mitigate the impacts of the scheme before me. Furthermore, the exercise of permitted development rights is subject to separate statutory controls, and there is no compelling evidence to suggest that their removal is necessary to make the current proposal acceptable.

[name] have had regard to the letters of support from nearby neighbours, they have not altered the considerations which have informed my recommendation.

The appeal scheme would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would also result in an unacceptable reduction in openness. In accordance with the Framework, I give substantial weight to these harms. There would also be harm in regard to the character and appearance of the area. Collectively, and for the above reasons, I would ascribe moderate weight to the other considerations. Such that they would be incapable of clearly outweighing the harms. Accordingly, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed 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.