Appeal 6005256

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Demolition of existing garage/annexe, proposed single-storey extensions & alterations to the front, rear and side at [site address] , Woodborough, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/0770 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following condition:

Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1 [name] to E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no ancillary or incidental structure, enlargement, improvement or other alteration to the dwelling shall be erected or carried out except with prior planning permission.

At the time of my visit the development which is the subject of this appeal appeared to be substantially complete in terms of external appearance and I have made my decision accordingly.

The main issue is whether the development which is the subject of this appeal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and if so, what other considerations, including relevant policies of the development plan, are material.

The appeal site, [site address] (No.4) is a large single storey house within a row of 6 individually designed houses occupying an deep inset to the Woodborough Conservation Area (WCA) which at this point is fronted by a line of substantial trees and a hedged perimeter along [address]. The houses are well set back and served by a private road accessed from [address]. from which they, No.4, together with No.10 and [address] lie within expansive open plots1 having the appearance of being recently constructed2 with some completion work still in progress.

The Council’s single refusal reason refers to Policy LPD13 of the Gedling Borough Local Planning Document Part 2 Local Plan (2018) (Part 2 Local Plan) which indicates that extensions to existing buildings would be supported providing they do not result, cumulatively, in a building more than 50% larger than the original building. In this case it is not disputed that the area of the original building was 276.5 m2. Subsequently approved works3 resulted in a building which was intended to be some 50% larger. However, in the course of completing these approved works, notwithstanding that permitted development rights had been removed by condition, a further 36m2 was added, amounting to 8%4 enlargement of what was approved but equivalent to 13% of the original building. It is on this point that the appeal arises. The protocol for establishing the calculated areas is not identified, nevertheless, the discrepancy between what has been permitted and what has been built in terms of areas referred to by the parties, falls outwith the usual tolerances of construction and cannot be attributed a de-minimis character. In terms of development plan policy there is a clear conflict with Policy LPD13 (a) of the Part 2 Local Plan. However, as my subsequent reasoning explains, any conflict with that policy attracts little weight in this matter.

Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) identifies exceptions to the presumption that development in the green belt is inappropriate, including, at (c), extensions to existing buildings which are not ‘disproportionate’. However, a refusal based solely upon a numeric calculation may not align with the Framework5 as the approach taken in Policy LPD13(a)6 does not account for the specific circumstances of each case. The decision of the Council does not address considerations of the impact of development upon the preservation of openness7, a fundamental aim of the green belt which may vary according to a range of factors, a matter to which I now turn.

The additional accommodation for which permission is sought comprises three rooms or spaces attached at the rear of the approved works and the retained garage. These do not increase the apparent bulk of the building in terms of width or height. Although the sun-room extension projects into the garden area at the rear as does the addition to the approved gym/bedroom space, the former extends no further than the original central wing and the latter only slightly so. Consequently, and noting the removal of the large wing of accommodation which formerly projected from the rear of the garage, the resulting footprint, even including the works which are the subject of this appeal, is contained spatially within a rectangle of land within the residential plot that is substantially smaller than that which prescribed the physical extent of the original building. 1 In the case of the appeal site amounting to around half of one hectare 2 This is not to suggest the houses are not either replacement dwellings or substantially altered and rebuilt 3 Ref: 2025/0555 permission dated 19 September 2025 4 The figures given are approximate 5 section 13 of the Framework 6 that deems cumulative additions greater than 50% of the original building to be disproportionate 7 the Council’s planning assessment appears to suggest there would be no material harm to the openness of the countryside this would appear to be an out-of-context extract from the appellant’s statement.

In summary, the accommodation which is now found is more compactly arranged than the original building such that the spatial impact of the additional accommodation upon openness of the green belt is very limited if not entirely absent. Noting the absence of additional height, visual impact is also negligible when compared to what has been approved. Consequently, having regard to policies in the Framework I find that the development which is the subject of this appeal preserves openness of the green belt notwithstanding its increased floor area.

The Council’s refusal reason refers to Policy 3 of the [name] Part 1 (ACS) but this is a policy that concerns Green Belt Review which is not a matter before me to consider, similarly it is not suggested that the works conflict with components i-iv of Part (b) of Policy LPD13.

The appellant points to [address] where a replacement dwelling has been erected8to an extent which does not accord with the similar provision in Policy LPD14. However, the reasoning applied to the grant of permission refers to extant permissions which would have resulted in a much larger building than that approved, nevertheless whilst it is apparent that there has been some inconsistency in the application of green belt policy for that position to arise, this has no direct bearing on this matter given my overall conclusion.

In conclusion, I have found no green belt harm arises and, having regard to the provisions of the Framework, the development accords with the development plan taken as a whole such that the appeal should succeed. As the development is already substantially complete no timing or plans conditions are required. However, having regard to the basis of my decision, and noting that the previously approved works removed rights provided by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, a condition to similar effect would be appropriate.