Appeal 6005057

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development 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; and • Would the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, be clearly outweighed by other considerations. If so, would this amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached dwelling located within a leafy cul-de-sac that lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt. Dwellings in [address] are of a similar design although a number have been extended. The host dwelling has been extended in the form of a single storey front canopy, side garage extension and a single storey rear extension.

The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The construction of new buildings is regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt save for a number of specified exceptions. One such exception is 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. The Framework does not set out the definition of ‘disproportionate additions’ therefore it is a matter of planning judgement.

Whilst the St Albans Local Plan Review (1994) (LP) predates the Framework existing policies should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted or made prior to the publication of it. Due weight should be given to them, according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. In my view LP Policy 1 is broadly consistent with the sustainable development principles and Green Belt objectives set out in the Framework. Although the language of LP Policy 13 is different to that of the Framework it is also broadly consistent in so far as it seeks to prevent buildings that are significantly large.

The Residential Extensions and [name] in the Green Belt Supplementary Planning Guidance (2004) (SPG) provides some context to Policy 13 and sets out that proposals will be assessed against a number of design criteria. The SPG also sets out that for side and rear extensions a cubic content of between 90 and 180m cubic metres and percentage increases in floorspace of between 20% and 40% would usually be acceptable.

The appellant advises that the total increase in volume would be just over 229 cubic metres and the proposal would result in a 71% increase in floorspace of the original dwelling. I acknowledge that the figures set out in the SPG are guidance and not rigid limits. However, they are a useful benchmark against which to assess schemes and in this regard the proposal would result in a building with a significantly greater floorspace and volume than prescribed in the SPG.

I appreciate that floorspace and volume are not the sole determining factor when assessing or measuring proportionality and I note the Council’s view that the proposal would perform moderately against the SPG’s design criteria. Nonetheless in combination with the existing extensions, the proposal would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

Whilst the appellant contends that the numerical limits are arbitrary. I cannot say that I come to the same conclusion. Albeit of some age, it is evident, based on the available information, that the figures in the SPG are based upon the cubic content figures in the General Permitted Development Order in relation to householder extensions that were in force at the time and provide an appropriate benchmark. Moreover, I have not been provided with any alternative approach to assessing this matter.

Therefore, the proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt as set out in the Framework, [name] 1 and 13 and the SPG.

The Framework states that one of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt is its openness. Openness is the absence of development notwithstanding the degree of visibility of the land in question from the public realm. Openness has both spatial and visual aspects.

The proposed development would introduce further built form at the site extending the floorspace and volume of the dwelling considerably resulting in a loss of openness in spatial terms. On account of its overall form the proposed side extension, despite its recessive nature, and the porch, notwithstanding its modest form would be conspicuous from the public realm thereby resulting in a visual impact upon openness.

As such, I find that there would be a loss of openness of the Green Belt contrary to the aims and objectives of the Framework.

The proposed development would not be contrary to the purposes of the Green Belt and the proposed extensions would be sympathetic to the appearance of the host dwelling resulting in a cohesive design. However, these matters neither individually nor cumulatively outweigh the harm that I have identified.

[address] has a suburban character, even so, as the appeal property lies within the Green Belt, I must assess the proposal against relevant local and national Green Belt planning policies. It would be amiss of me to do otherwise.

The appellant has drawn my attention to examples of other extensions permitted in [address] and the wider area and a previous appeal decision. There is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that the application of policies places arbitrary restrictions on housing stock. Rather consideration of such matters are ones of planning judgement based upon the individual merits of the case. Every application and appeal, for that matter, is considered on its own merits, as I have done, and in this particular case the presence of these developments do not justify the harm that I have identified.

As the site falls within the Sandridge Conservation Area (CA), I have had regard to section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 and my duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area.

The Council advise that the proposed development would not harm the character or appearance of this part of the CA. Based on the evidence before me there is nothing that would lead me to reach a different conclusion. As such, the proposal would preserve the special qualities of the CA.

In line with the Framework the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would also result in a loss of openness. I attach substantial weight to this harm.

The other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

For the reasons set out above the appeal is dismissed.