Appeal 6005532

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Demolition of [name] and Erection of a [name] at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/0474 and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following

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

The development shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: [name] / 25 / 3

The main issues are whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and if so, what other considerations are material.

The appeal site (No.23) is a semi-detached mid-twentieth-century two-storey house within a row of similar dwellings set within open countryside at the edge of the village of Papplewick. Several of the neighbouring houses display substantial extension of their original built form including double height additions projecting significantly into the rear garden area. The appellant seeks to replace an existing conservatory which is in poor condition with a larger masonry-built structure. Although projecting further south than the existing conservatory the proposed replacement would fall within a general alignment of built development at the rear of neighbouring houses in the form of rear extensions and ancillary buildings.

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, at (a), 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. Whilst such a policy may support consistency in decision-making, the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) does not apply empirical limits as to what is or is not, ‘disproportionate’ within the meaning of Paragraph 154 (c) of the Framework. The Framework makes clear that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the green belt and also that harm to the green belt should attract substantial weight in the overall planning balance. However, in that regard a refusal based solely upon a numeric calculation may not align with the principles set out in section 13 of the Framework. I further note, on the Council’s figures, that the existing built area including the existing conservatory is already very close to the limits set by Policy LPD13 (a) and consequently any further additions, however small, would conflict with that Policy without further consideration as to other factors even though there may be other considerations to be addressed.

Nevertheless, and notwithstanding the inconsistency between the Framework and Policy LPD13(a), the proposal would result in a substantial increase over the size of the original building to a degree which is disproportionate and, in consequence, the development would be inappropriate development in the green belt. However, as I have indicated, the approach taken in Policy LPD13(a) does not account for the circumstances of each case, such as the height and bulk of a proposal or other issues which may be material to the considerations of openness and permanence which are fundamental aims of the green belt and to which I now turn.

The proposed extension would sit wholly within the established garden area of No.23, and therefore the land use would remain unchanged in terms of residential amenity land which has an entirely different active character from surrounding, largely open, agricultural land. Considering the housing group on the south side of [address] as a whole, and noting the substantial village hall close by, the appeal site rests within a well-defined area of established residential development which is washed over by the green belt. This area is characterised by the usual range of incidental or ancillary structures1, fences, domestic paraphernalia and vegetation, including trees, such that gardens to these properties, including the appeal site, cannot be considered ‘open’ in the day-to-day meaning of the word. In these circumstances visual or spatial change would be absent at the broader scale, and noting that the Council consider the proposal would otherwise be an acceptable form of development, I find that the development would have a neutral impact upon openness of the green belt.

The appellant refers to permitted development rights to extend the property as a fallback position. This has been dismissed by the Council2 although such rights do not appear to have been removed, nor is the basis of the Council’s comment entirely clear. Given my overall conclusion it is not necessary to address this point although it would be a material consideration in other circumstances. 1 The appellant has pointed to the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) 2015 (GPDO) which would allow development within the curtilage of a dwelling house 2 Officer report ‘Impact on the Green Belt’ .

To conclude; I note that the Council have indicated the development would not be unacceptable in terms of residential amenity or other material factors, and whilst I have found the development not to comply with the exception provided by paragraph 154(c) of the Framework, the effect of the development upon the openness of the green belt would be neutral. As no other considerations stand to be considered against the proposed development which would, by the replacement of a substandard building improve living conditions of an occupier, the appeal should, on balance and taking all matters raised into account, succeed subject to the usual timing and plans conditions.