Appeal 6005628

The appeal is dismissed.

No. [site address] (No. 2) is a semi-detached house located in the Green Belt. The Council and the appellant each consider that the proposal amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This is because it would entail the extension of a dwelling which would not be limited and, instead, would result in the disproportionate enlargement of the original building. I agree with these views.

Therefore, the main issues are: • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

No. 2 forms part of a small group of properties and buildings situated in the countryside off [site address] . The surrounding area comprises extensive tracts of fields and woodlands, giving it a verdant rural character with pronounced openness. No. 2 itself is a semi-detached dwelling that is partly two-storey and partly single-storey, set within a spacious plot.

In spatial terms, the proposed side extension would result in a volumetric increase in the overall size of the property. The appellant has set out that the proposal would add over 90m3 of development. This would amount to a considerable increase of the property’s first floor accommodation, large enough to house an additional spacious bedroom, an extended bathroom and some extra storage.

This would translate into visual effects as well. From [site address] to the front, the enlargement of the property’s first floor accommodation would be clearly apparent – the upper storey would be noticeably bulkier and of greater mass than at present.

Overall, owing to the scale and design of the extension proposed, the site would adopt a more built-up character, and the openness of the Green Belt would be reduced in both spatial and visual terms. That said, the proposal is of domestic nature and scale, and it would add to a site which already exhibits built-up characteristics. Therefore, the resulting effect on openness would be limited. Nevertheless, a reduction in openness would arise, and this would be harmful to the Green Belt.

The appellant has presented to me other types of extensions which, it is asserted, constitute a fallback position which weighs in the appeal’s favour. This fallback development consists of a single-storey rear extension and a dormer on the property’s rear roof slope.

In respect of the rear extension, on the 24 March 2026, the Council provided written notice confirming that its prior approval was not required for an extension of some 6m in length and a maximum height of 3.75m1. The relevant plan is before me2. If it was implemented, this rear extension would add over 100m3 of accommodation to the property. Given the determination made by the Council, I have compelling evidence that this rear extension could be implemented through the exercise of permitted development rights.

Subject to certain conditions and limitations, permitted development rights permit a rear dormer extension of up to 50m3. The appellant has supplied a plan3 which depicts the design of a potential dormer, and the plan confirms that it would have a volume of just over 30m3. I have no good reason to conclude that such a dormer could not be constructed utilising permitted development rights.

The internal accommodation which would be created by this fallback development of the dormer and rear extension would differ from the side extension proposal. Even so, it seems the clear desire of the appellant to extend the host property, and I expect they would pursue other avenues to enlarge the property if the proposal could not be carried out.

For these reasons, I consider there to be a greater than theoretical prospect that the fallback development of the rear extension and dormer could be carried out. However, I must also consider whether and to what extent the fallback development presented to me weighs in favour of allowing the appeal.

As a part of this, I have compared the effects of the side extension proposal and the fallback development on the openness of the Green Belt.

Taken together, the fallback development would result in a volumetric increase to the property that exceeds that of the proposal. However, being sited at the rear of the dwelling, in some views from the property’s front, the fallback development 1 Application Reference 26/00911/DHH 2 Plan Reference LS2 Rev 0 3 Plan Reference LS6 Rev 0 would be well-screened. In comparison, the side extension’s address of [site address] would be much more visually prominent.

Farther to the west, on both [site address] and [address], the rear extension’s projection into the garden and the dormer’s additional roofscape mass would be apparent. Even so, in part, these extensions would be seen against the built-up backdrop of nearby buildings at [address], lessening the magnitude of their visual effects on openness.

Even so, in the round, given it would be of greater overall scale, the fallback development would reduce the openness of the Green Belt more than the proposal. However, this would principally be in spatial terms. Its visual effects on openness would not be markedly greater than the side extension.

The dormer element of the fallback development would add a large box-like feature to the property which would dominate the rear roof slope and be uncomplimentary to the roofscape. Although its rear roof slope position would limit its prominence, it would nevertheless be an unsympathetic addition to the host property, and it would result in some harm to the character and appearance of the area which would not be the case with the side extension proposal.

Since, in comparison to the proposal, the fallback development would result in a greater reduction in the openness of the Green Belt, and harm the character and appearance of the area, it would be the more harmful development.

However, a further important consideration is the degree of certainty I have that the fallback development would come forward only as an alternative to the proposal. I have no compelling evidence before me which indicates to me that this would be the case. [name] allowed the appeal, there is no mechanism which would prevent the fallback development being implemented as well as the proposal. Even if I allowed the appeal with certain permitted development rights removed via condition, this would not prevent the fallback development being implemented first. The proposal could, thereafter, still come forward. Should this occur, the combined harm derived from the proposal and the fallback development would arise, including their harmful effects on openness.

This is an important consideration which significantly limits the extent to which the fallback development can weigh in the appeal proposal’s favour.

The proposal amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. On these grounds alone, the Green Belt would be harmed, and this is a matter of substantial weight. Furthermore, in my first main issue, I have found that the proposal would also reduce the Green Belt's openness, albeit to a limited extent, but, nevertheless, this would also result in harm to the Green Belt. This, again, draws substantial weight. The proposal would not result in other harms. For instance, it would not give rise to any harmful effects on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, and it would also be well-designed.

Paragraph 153 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) makes it clear that inappropriate development should only be approved where very special circumstances exist. It is important to note that these very special circumstances will not exist unless the totality of the harm to the Green Belt (and any other harm should there be any) is clearly outweighed by the other considerations. This means that it is insufficient for the other considerations to merely outweigh the harm - they must do so decisively.

Policy N33 of the Leeds Unitary Development Plan (the UDP) similarly sets out that in cases where development is proposed in the Green Belt which does not constitute one of its defined development type exemptions, as is the case here, it shall only be approved in very special circumstances. Policy HDG3 of Leeds City Council’s Householder Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD) supports UDP Policy N33 and likewise sets out that inappropriate development in the Green Belt will be resisted unless very special circumstances are demonstrated.

A fallback development comprising of a rear extension and a dormer could be implemented utilising permitted development rights. It would have a more harmful effect on the openness of the Green Belt than the proposal, principally in spatial rather than visual terms. The dormer element would also harm the character and appearance of the area.

However, if I were to allow the appeal, there is nothing before me which would rule out the fallback development being carried out as well as the proposal. This undermines the confidence I have that the fallback development is only an alternative development. Instead, potentially, the proposal and the fallback development could come forward with, in turn, their maximised harm to the Green Belt, and some harm to the character and appearance of the area as well.

Given the circumstances, the fallback position does not weigh in favour of allowing the appeal to the extent that it clearly outweighs the proposal’s totality of the harm to the Green Belt. Therefore, the other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the harm identified and, consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal do not exist.

As a result, the development conflicts with Policy N33 of the UDP, the guidance of the SPD and with the Framework’s Green Belt policy.

The development conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.