Appeal 6005738

The appeal is allowed. Planning permission is granted for alterations and an increase in ridge height to the existing roof at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, CHE/25/00671/HOU, 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 hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan PL01, Proposed Site Plan PL02A, Proposed Plan PL04E, [name] PL05G.

The materials to be used in the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The Council changed the description of the development and I have used this description as it is more accurate.

The main issues in the appeal are: • 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 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 to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal

The appeal property is a farmhouse located within the Green Belt which has been subject to previous extensions. An extension approved in 1985 incorporated a former barn/cow shed (barn extension) into the dwelling creating a L shaped footprint. The proposal seeks to raise the height of this extension to increase the floorspace at first floor level of the dwelling. The Framework states that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate development within the Green Belt unless the development falls within specified exceptions. Paragraph 154 of the Framework list exceptions which are not inappropriate development. These include at paragraph 154 (c) the extension or alteration of a building provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, or the building as existed in 1948. Local Plan Policy CLP1 and CLP15 of the Chesterfield Borough Local Plan (Local Plan) defer to the Framework in this regard.

It appears that in granting the incorporation of the barn extension and a subsequent approval in 2016 for a further extension the Council was satisfied that the totality of the extensions were not disproportionate to the original building. However, the extensions permitted by these permissions do not now represent the original building for assessing the proportionality of the appeal proposal. The Framework requires me to have regard to the size of the original building as shown on the 1985 drawing.

The Framework does not detail what a disproportionate addition means, nor sets out any volumetric or other standards. Assessing proportionality is therefore not purely a mathematical calculation as the test is primarily an objective one based on size and taking into account matters such as height, bulk, form and siting and design.

The proposal seeks to increase the eaves, ridge height and pitch of the existing dwelling by an increase in height of the barn extension by approximately 0.7 metres resulting in a roof volume increase of approximately 63m3. There would be no increase in the footprint of the building and the roof height would remain below that of the main part of the dwelling. It would remain subservient in scale to the host, albeit extended, dwelling.

I note that within the officer report the Council raise concerns that the proposal would conflict with design polices set out within the Local Plan in relation to massing and form, although conflict with the relevant policy cited is not included as a reason for refusal within the Decision Notice. The extension would increase the height of that part of the appeal building closer to the public highway and be visible from the road. However when read in combination with the original building it would not appear to be overly dominant given its subservience to the main part of the dwelling. Overall in terms of its form, bulk and prominence the proposal would not significantly extend the visual impression of built development in this rural location, nor overwhelm the original building.

Given the scale of the original building and taking the above into account, I find that the proposal would not result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. On this basis and on the specific site circumstances, context and the works proposed, I find that the proposal would not constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt and would accord with the Framework and Local Plan Polices CLP1 and CLP15.

[name] have found that the development would not constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt, there is no requirement for me to consider the effect of the proposal on the openness or purposes of the Green Belt, nor for very special circumstances to justify the development to be demonstrated.

Conditions in respect of timescales and specifying the approved plans are necessary as these provide certainty. A condition regarding the materials to be used is also necessary to ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory. Within the officer report reference is made to a condition in relation to the cill height of a proposed window in the north roof plane but this is shown as a velux window within the drawings. Given this and its distance away from the neighbouring dwelling, I do not consider such a condition is necessary.

For the reasons given above having considered the development plan and all other material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed as set out in the formal decision notice above.