Appeal 6005355

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for regularisation of two storey rear extension for additional living accommodation completed to the rear of the property and regularisation of new access created to [address] from [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P25/01703/HH, subject to the following condition: 1.) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 477–101, 477–102A, 477–011, 477-012, 477-111.

The application is retrospective in nature, and my observations during the site visit confirmed this to be the case. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans.

The main issues are: - whether the development is 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 character and appearance of the site and the surrounding area; - whether the development includes adequate arrangements for the operation and maintenance of the culvert; and - the effect of the development on highway safety.

The site comprises a dwelling situated in the Green Belt. The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are openness and permanence. 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.

The appeal development includes the extension of a dwelling. The Framework advises that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt subject to exceptions, one of which 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. Policy PSP7 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (2017) (LP) states that additions and alterations to buildings in the Green Belt will be acceptable provided they do not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The policy states that, as a general guide, an addition resulting in a volume increase up to 30% of the original building would be likely to be proportionate and additions that exceed 30% volume increase will be carefully assessed.

The property comprises a 2-storey dwelling which originated from the conversion of a double garage1. The proposal involves a 2-storey rear extension spanning the entire width of the dwelling which has a depth of 3.65m. The main parties disagree on the volume increase created by the proposal when combined with an increase in volume resulting from a Section 73 application2 which included alterations to the roof pitch (the Section 73 application). The Council calculate that the appeal development results in a volume increase of 69.87% which includes a volume increase of 18.19% resulting from the Section 73 application. The appellant states that the Section 73 application resulted in a 5% increase in volume and that factoring in the removal of 23m3 of outbuildings from the original curtilage, the development results in a 49.1m3 volume uplift and a 40% volume increase.

I have been provided with a copy of the supporting statement for the Section 73 application, in which the amendment is described as resulting in a volume approximately no greater than 5%. There is no compelling evidence before me that the Section 73 application resulted in the 18.19% volume increase referenced by the Council. Considering the volume of the appeal development and the Section 73 application in combination with the reduction in built form arising from the removal of outbuildings, the evidence indicates that the development results in an approximate 40% increase in the volume compared to the original building.

LP policy PSP7 states that additions that exceed 30% volume increase will be carefully assessed, with particular regard to whether it would appear out of scale and proportion to the existing building. The policy goes on to state that the larger a building becomes in excess of 30% over and above its original size, the less likely it is that the new extension(s) will be considered proportionate. The 3.65m rear projection represents a modest increase in built form which does not dominate the 1 Application reference P22/04022/F 2 Application reference P24/00339/RVC host dwelling or appear out of scale with it, representing a proportionate addition to the host dwelling which accords with those aims of LP policy PSP7.

In light of the above I find that the development does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building and thus falls within one of the exceptions set out in Paragraph 154 of the Framework and is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would not be contrary to the Framework in this regard and would not conflict with LP policy PSP7 and [name] (2013) (CS) policy CS5.

A finding of the acceptability of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it is implicit in a finding of it not being inappropriate development. I am not therefore required to consider this matter further. Additionally, as I do not find that the development is inappropriate, there is no requirement to question whether very special circumstances are generated in this instance.

The host dwelling is a modest pitched roof building finished in render and stonework which has the appearance of a traditional rural cottage. It is set back from the road within a spacious plot bordered by mature landscaping. Dwellings in the area are varied in form and are predominantly sited within spacious, maturely landscaped plots, giving the area a verdant, rural character to which the appeal site makes a positive contribution.

The extension is finished with white render and mirrors the form and appearance of the host dwelling forming a double pitched valley roof . The extension is subservient in scale to the host dwelling and does not dominate it. The materials and finishes are sympathetic to the host dwelling and properties in the area. Given the dwelling’s recessed position within its plot, the siting of the extension to the rear and the presence of mature vegetation to the site boundaries, the extension results in minimal visual impact from the public realm.

The development does not result in harm to the character and appearance of the site or the surrounding area and thus accords with LP policies PSP1 and PSP38 and CS policy CS1 which seek to ensure that development is of a high-quality design which makes a positive contribution to the distinctiveness of the area.

To the front of the site is a rhyne, a watercourse which is managed and maintained by the Lower Severn Internal Drainage Board (LSIDB). The development includes the creation of a vehicular access onto [address], replacing a pedestrian access. To facilitate the creation of the access, the watercourse is culverted to the site frontage. The LSIDB granted [name] (LDC) for the installation of the culvert and confirm that these works have been completed in accordance with the LDC. The evidence before me indicates that the culvert has been designed to the LSIDB’s satisfaction and that the existing management and maintenance arrangements for the watercourse will remain.

The site is located in [name] 3. The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) states that the access does not increase surface water flooding to the property or other neighbouring properties and that the access gradient implemented through works permeates water through gravel surfacing within the curtilage and into an existing soakaway system, avoiding ponding on the highway.

I am satisfied that the submission includes sufficient information regarding arrangements for the ownership, operation and maintenance of the culvert, that runoff is satisfactorily managed and that the development does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. I therefore find no conflict with LP policy PSP20 which requires that development ensure that surface water drainage proposals are designed to not increase off-site flood risk and are evidenced with appropriate arrangements for future ownership, operation and maintenance of surface water drainage features.

I also find no conflict with the Framework which provides guidance on planning and flood risk.

The development includes the creation of a vehicular access onto [address], a grass verge-lined rural road. At my mid-morning site visit I observed that [address] was lightly trafficked. The access is sited on a bend in the road, and I observed that visibility was good in both directions from the site access. Whilst this is a snapshot in time, there is nothing in the evidence before me to indicate that my observations are atypical of the area.

The submission includes detailed drawings of the crossover extending over the culverted watercourse. This comprises concrete and permeable paving setts bounded by dropped kerbs to the surface transitions. The crossover is set back from the adopted highway on private land, which the submission sets out is maintained and managed by the appellant. It is also stated that the grass verge which is crossed by the access has been confirmed as being in private ownership.

I am satisfied that the submission is supported by adequate information regarding the access and its connection to [address] and that the access is appropriate and safe, satisfactorily managed and maintained. I therefore find no conflict with CS policy CS8 and LP policies PSP11 and PSP16 which require that appropriate, safe, accessible, convenient, and attractive access is provided and that car parking is provided in accordance with specified parking standards.

I also find no conflict with the Framework which seeks to ensure that development creates places that are safe, secure and attractive.

Given the retrospective nature of the application, it is not necessary to impose the standard time limit condition. I have imposed a condition that requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for certainty.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.