Appeal 6005336

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of an oak framed orangery following removal of an existing conservatory at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application CB/25/03086/FULL subject to the following conditions.

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

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers CBC001 Existing and Proposed Block Plan, CBC002 [name], [name] and [name], CBC003 [name], [name] and [name] and CBC004 Site Location Plan.

The main issue is 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 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 for the decision maker.

Policy SP4 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan (2021) (LP) relates to the Green Belt and states that development proposals will be assessed in accordance with national guidance. Section 11 of the [name] (CBDG) sets out that as a guiding principle for an extension to be considered 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 proposal is for the demolition of an existing conservatory and construction of an oak framed orangery. The Council has drawn my attention to a number of implemented planning permissions for extensions to the host dwelling. On this basis they advise that the proposed development in combination with other extensions to the building would result in a 64% increase in the total footprint of the dwelling and a 167% increase in floorspace.

Whilst a numerical analysis is a useful starting point, the guidance in the CBDG implies a degree of flexibility. The original dwelling has been extended previously and the scheme before me would further increase its size. That said, the demolition of the existing conservatory to make way for the orangery would offset the increase in footprint and floorspace. The result would thus be only a very modest increase in the overall footprint and floorspace of the dwelling.

The proposal on account of its appearance and form would appear subordinate to the host dwelling and would be consistent with its design, scale and proportions. The scale and visual impact of the orangery would not give the impression of a large or sprawling addition even when considered in the context of the previous extensions to the host dwelling.

I, therefore, find that the proposed development would not result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. As such, it would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and therefore the scheme would not conflict with the Framework and LP Policy SP4.

[name] have found that the proposed development would not be inappropriate development no further assessment with regard to openness is necessary and no very special circumstances need to be demonstrated to justify it.

The Council has drawn my attention to a refused planning application and subsequent dismissed appeal decision which they contend are relevant. Based on the limited evidence before me I cannot be satisfied that this example is comparable to the scheme before me. In any event every application and appeal must be considered on its own merits, as I have done. As such, it does not lead me to reach a different conclusion in respect of the appeal.

The site lies within the Chiltern National Landscape (NL). Paragraph 189 of the Framework states that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes and which have the highest status of protection. The proposed development would be modest in scale and form and contained within a domestic plot. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the character and appearance of this part of the [name] and its scenic beauty would not be harmed.

I have considered the imposition of conditions in accordance with the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the standard time limit condition, it is necessary in the interests of precision, to define the plans with which the development should accord.

For the reasons set out above the appeal succeeds.