Appeal 6005049

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a first floor side extension over existing garage with balustrade and privacy screen, single storey front porch extension, solar panels to rear elevation and a single storey detached garden room to the rear at [site address] , Totternhoe, [name], [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/02876/FULL subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: FLV25-100, FLV25-101, FLV25-102, FLV25- 103, FLV25-200D, FLV25-201A, FLV25-204A, FLV25-206A, FLV25-207A, FLV25-208.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building or, where shown to differ on the approved plans, in accordance with those plans and the details set out in the original planning application.

The balcony hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the proposed privacy screen, as shown on approved plan ref FLV25-201A, has been installed. Following installation, the privacy screen shall thereafter be retained.

The main issues are: firstly, whether the proposed development would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), 2024, and any relevant development plan policies; secondly, the effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and thirdly, if the Appeal Decision Ref: 6005049 proposed development would amount to inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations, such as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

The appeal dwelling is a traditional, detached house on a very large plot in the settlement of Totternhoe. It has a single storey garage to the side. It is set back from the highway behind a generous frontage. The site lies within the Green Belt.

Policy SP4 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2015-2035 (LP), adopted 2021, states that “Within the Green Belt there is a general presumption against inappropriate development. Development proposals within the Green Belt will be assessed in accordance with government guidance contained in the NPPF [National Planning Policy Framework] and NPPG [National Planning Practice Guidance]”. It goes on to state that “within settlements washed over by the Green Belt, applicants will be expected to pay particular attention to the quality and design of development proposed, to ensure that development respects and is sympathetic to the character and openness of the settlement and its surroundings”.

The NPPF identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It goes on to state that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. New buildings are inappropriate except in a limited number of circumstances. For extensions and alterations to existing buildings, these should not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. “Original building” is defined in the NPPF as a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after this date, as originally built.

The Central Bedfordshire Design Guide (DG), 2023, states that, as a guiding principle, to be considered as proportionate the original building should not be added to by more than 60% of footprint, floorspace and volume. The impact of the extension in terms of massing and design will also be considered.

The evidence provides very limited planning history for the site. There is no original planning permission for the dwelling nor any planning history of extensions, other than a modest front extension to the porch and garage, granted permission in 1986. This permission appears not to have been implemented.

The Council estimates that the original dwelling had a footprint of 44m2 and a floorspace of some 74m2. On that basis, it calculates that existing extensions coupled with the proposed extension would result in increases over and above the original dwelling of 200% footprint and 162% floorspace. According to the Council’s figures, most of this would be accounted for by existing extensions. The Council does not provide any evidence or reasoning to support its calculations.

Whilst it appears that the dwelling has undergone some extension and alteration, it is not clear from the evidence what constituted the original dwelling and therefore it is not possible to assess with any degree of accuracy or certainty what the increase over and above the original dwelling might be. Furthermore, the architecture of the Appeal Decision Ref: 6005049 dwelling is reminiscent of the interwar and early post-war period. It is therefore not unlikely, on the balance of probability, that it pre-dates 1 July 1948. Under these circumstances, some alterations and additions may have been carried out before that date, thus constituting part of the “original building” for the purposes of Green Belt policy.

Given the paucity of baseline evidence, it would lack natural justice and thus be unreasonable to place undue reliance on the Council’s unsubstantiated figures. In any case, a mathematical assessment, whilst often a good starting point, is not the only way to assess proportionality. Significantly, the NPPF does not provide a numerical definition of “disproportionate additions”. I have therefore had regard to Policy SP4 in relation to settlements, such as Totternhoe, that are washed over by the Green Belt. In particular, I have considered the proposed extensions in terms of their character and appearance, whether their scale, quality and design would respect and sympathise with the host dwelling and the character and openness of the surrounding area, and thus whether the proposed extensions would, in combination with the existing dwelling, including any additions, appear disproportionate.

The proposed extensions would comprise a first floor addition above the existing garage and a modest front porch. I agree with the Council that the first floor extension would form a subservient addition to the existing house, with a lower ridge and set back from the principal elevation. It would be set one meter from the side boundary, maintaining openness between the plots. The design would respect and harmonise with the existing dwelling, and it would sit comfortably in the varied street scene of [address]. Likewise, I agree that the porch would form a modest addition which I consider to be sympathetic and proportionate. I therefore find that the proposed extensions, including the proposed privacy screen, would comply with Policy SP4 relating to development in the Green Belt and that they would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the “original building”.

Turning to the proposed outbuilding, it would be sited some distance from the main dwelling and close to the boundary with No 20 which is marked by a high fence. It would be modest in terms of footprint with a height of some 2.8m. In terms of Green Belt policy, there is no exception in the NPPF relating to outbuildings to the general assumptions regarding inappropriate development. The proposed outbuilding would therefore amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

It is concluded on the first main issue that the proposed extensions to the dwelling would not amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would comply with LP Policy SP4 and the NPPF insofar as they seek to control extensions to buildings in the Green Belt. Nevertheless, the proposed outbuilding would amount to inappropriate development. The NPPF advises that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including that by reason of inappropriateness.

The NPPF states that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence. The courts have determined that where development is found to be “not inappropriate” it should not be regarded as harmful either to the openness of the Green Belt or to the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. In the context of the proposed extensions, the matter of openness does not, Appeal Decision Ref: 6005049 therefore, need further consideration and I find that part of the proposed development should be permitted.

However, the proposed outbuilding would amount to inappropriate development. It would be screened from the surrounding area by the boundary fencing and its location, close to the boundary fence would limit its effect on openness. Nevertheless, it would amount to built development where currently there is none and would thus have a minor effect on the openness of the area which would result in minimal harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

It is concluded on the second main issue that the proposed outbuilding would materially detract from the openness of the Green Belt. In accordance with the NPPF, the harm caused to the Green Belt by reason of effect on openness attracts substantial weight.

The appellants have drawn my attention to one other consideration which they consider might amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed outbuilding. They acknowledge that, as proposed, the outbuilding could not be constructed under permitted development (PD) rights set out in Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development (England) Order) 2015 (as amended) but point out that if it was moved more than 2m from the boundary it could be built. It could likewise be built at the proposed location if the height was limited to 2.5m. It is also relevant that a higher (up to 4m) and/or larger building could be constructed under PD rights, subject to positioning if more than 2m from the boundary. The Council does not address the matter of PD rights and in particular does not suggest these have been withdrawn.

I consider that if the appeal was dismissed it is highly likely that the appellants would construct a very similar building to that proposed, potentially in a more open area of the very large garden. I therefore find that permitted development rights would amount to a realistic fallback with a genuine prospect of being implemented and that this would have a greater effect on openness than the appeal scheme. This carries considerable weight.

It is concluded on the third main issue that the other consideration would, in this case, clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt that I have identified. I therefore consider that the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed outbuilding exist. In consequence, there would be no conflict with national policy set out in the NPPF or with LP Policy SP4.

Turning to conditions, in addition to the statutory commencement condition, conditions requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and in the approved materials are necessary for the avoidance of doubt and to protect the character and appearance of the area. In addition, a condition requiring the proposed obscure glazed privacy screen on the first floor balcony to be installed before the first use of the balcony, and thereafter retained, is necessary to protect the privacy of occupiers at [address]. Since this screen has been proposed by the appellants, who recognised it was necessary in order to protect neighbours from overlooking, a condition requiring the provision and retention of the screen would not be unexpected. Appeal Decision Ref: 6005049

For the reasons set out above and having regard to all other matters raised, including the lack of objection from Totternhoe Parish Council and the proposed solar panels to which the Council raises no objection and which I find acceptable, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.