Appeal 6004989

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this appeal are: • Whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to any relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”). • The effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt. • The effect of the proposed development on protected bat species. • If the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, whether the 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 it.

Policy GBR1 of the East Herts District Plan 2018 (“the EHDP”) states that planning applications within the Green Belt will be considered in line with the provisions of the Framework. Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate development, subject to specific exceptions.

The exception relevant to the appeal development is the extension or alteration of a building. In accordance with Framework Paragraph 154.c) the extension or alteration of a building in the Green Belt is not inappropriate development provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

The Framework defines an original building as a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after that date, as it was built originally. There appears to be no dispute between the main parties that the original building in this appeal had a floor area of some [address] metres. The Council has provided a plotting sheet map that purports to show this.

The Framework does not define what constitutes disproportionate additions over and above the size of an original building. It is therefore a matter of planning judgement based on the size of the addition or additions relative to that of the original building. This includes the accumulation of any subsequent additions that may have been added to the original building through development over the years.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the original building has been enlarged through subsequent additions and extensions over the years. Using floor space as a proxy for ‘size’, which in my judgement is a reasonable approach given the relationship between them, the Council has calculated the extent to which those additions and extensions have increased the floor space of the original building.

Except for the inclusion of an outbuilding, which is shown as having [address] metres of floor space, there is no dispute over the Council’s floor space calculations. The outbuilding appears to correlate to a sizeable building just to the west of the dwelling. The appellant contends that the outbuilding should be excluded from the Council’s calculations because it was not an extension to the original building and is understood to have involved the refurbishment of a derelict barn, which did not create new floor space.

The appellant’s description of the outbuilding as the refurbishment of an existing building does not seem to align with the Council’s description of it as a ‘replacement outbuilding’, granted planning permission in July 2013, ref. 3/13/0713/FP. To my mind, the term ‘replacement’ implies a new building as opposed to refurbishing an existing one. The Council’s description of it being a replacement building correlates with the replacement of a smaller outbuilding that is listed in the appeal property’s planning history. Furthermore, I see no reason why an outbuilding closely associated with a dwelling but still detached from it could not be considered as an extension to the accommodation within that dwelling.

Nonetheless, even if I were to take the best-case scenario for the appellant and subtract the disputed outbuilding from the Council’s calculations, the proposed extension, together with the non-disputed subsequent extensions, would increase the total floor space within the building to some [address] metres, rather than the [address] metres or so that were calculated by the Council. This equates to an additional [address] metres or so over and above that of the original building or some 134% in percentage terms, rather than 221% as calculated by the Council.

Those quantitative calculations, which capture the cumulative increase in the size of the original building through subsequent additions, provide a clear indication that the proposed extension, when taken with the sizes of those subsequent extensions, would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

The Framework does not limit the test of proportionality purely to a quantitative assessment of floor space. Factors relating to changes to the size of a building such as volume, height, length and width can all be relevant factors to this judgement, as can the relationship between them, including massing and bulk.

The appeal development would be modest in size when compared to the existing building, with the rear extension having a low height roof. The Council refers to a subservient relationship with the existing host dwelling. However, even discounting the disputed outbuilding, a comparison of the floor area of the original building to that which currently exists ‘on the ground’ indicates the physical sizes of the non-original parts of the building.

Based on that visual assessment, it is apparent that those subsequent extensions to the original building, which have more than doubled its floor space, have resulted in the accumulation of significant additional built form and mass. The proposed development, together with the built form and mass of those existing subsequent additions, would amount to visibly disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

Consequently, for the reasons given above, the proposed development would, when taken in combination with the previous additions to the original building, result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. As such, it would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, contrary to the exception in Framework paragraph 154.c) and EHDP Policy GBR1, which relies upon the Framework’s provisions.

The exception in Framework paragraph 154.c) does not refer to Green Belt purposes or openness. Given that I have found the appeal proposal to be inappropriate development, I find no basis to undertake a freestanding assessment against the purposes of the Green Belt in Framework Paragraph 143.

Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt, and it has spatial and visual aspects. The effect on the overall openness of the Green Belt would be limited in the spatial and visual dimensions given the size of the proposed extension. There is no dispute that views of the development could not be obtained from a public vantage point. Compared to the existing roof dormers, the larger ones proposed would hardly have any effect on Green Belt openness. For those reasons, the totality of the appeal proposal would have a limited negative effect on Green Belt openness, contrary to the Framework’s aim of keeping the land permanently open, and EHDP Policy GBR1.

Bats are protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as amended, and several bat species are of ‘principal importance’ under Section 41 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006. The appeal site lies within a rural area where development is relatively sparse and much of the land is undeveloped. There appeared to be a sizeable woodland to the south of the appeal site, with belts of trees lining roads and bordering fields and properties. The appeal property is of some age, and its roof is covered with small plain tiles with a series of verges and fascias to the roof dormers that might provide roosting space for bats. Trees could provide linkages allowing bat species to move to and from the appeal site. I would expect the proposed works to the appeal property’s roof slope to be invasive and likely to harm any bat species roosting there.

As reflected in the supporting text to EHDP Policy NE3, the advice in Circular 06/2005 ‘Biodiversity and Geological conservation’ states the importance of establishing the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent to which they may be affected by a proposed development, before the planning permission is granted. Otherwise, all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed in making the decision. The need to ensure ecological surveys are carried out should therefore only be left to coverage under planning conditions in exceptional circumstances.

The appellant advises that an ecology survey was submitted to the planning department through the planning portal, but the case officer did not receive the document, or it was not associated to the application in time for their review. Nevertheless, the ecology survey is not before me in evidence, and it is the responsibility of the parties to set out their cases in full. Even if a survey had shown an absence of harm to bats, it would not have altered the outcome of the appeal, given that I have dismissed the appeal for other reasons.

As it currently stands, in the absence of evidence to substantiate an absence of harm to bat species, I have taken a precautionary approach and concluded on this issue that the proposed development would harm protected bat species. The proposal is therefore contrary to EHDP Policy NE3 insofar as it expects ecological features of conservation value to be protected and enhanced, and impacts on species of principal importance to be avoided.

The appeal scheme is aimed at improving the internal layout and functionality of the dwelling, creating higher-quality living accommodation that better reflects modern living requirements. Those benefits are clearly important to the appellant and weigh in favour of the appeal. However, the planning process is mainly concerned with the wider public interest, which in this instance includes the great importance attached to Green Belts and their openness and permanence.

Details of the numerous examples of large extensions and new buildings that I am advised have been approved in the Green Belt within the immediate locality of the appeal site are not before me. [name] am unable to determine whether their circumstances are comparable to those in the case before me, limited weight attaches to them. I have assessed the proposal on its own merits in any case.

I see no reasons to disagree with the Council’s conclusion that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area. However, those considerations are materially different to the assessment of the proposal against the policies that relate to the Green Belt, including the tests for determining inappropriateness and effects on openness.

An absence of harm and objections in respect of all other matters, including to the design of the proposal and its effects on the living conditions of nearby occupiers, are neutral factors that do not weigh in favour nor against the appeal.

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would harm Green Belt openness. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Such circumstances will not exist unless the totality of the harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The Framework requires me to give substantial weight to any harm to the Green Belt.

Even if I was to discount the potential harm to bat species as a best-case scenario for the appellant, the weight I must attach to the totality of the Green Belt harm would not be clearly outweighed by other considerations. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist. For those reasons the proposal conflicts with EHDP Policy GBR1 and the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations that outweigh that finding. Accordingly, the proposal is unacceptable, and the appeal should be dismissed.