Appeal 6006148

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issues are: i. 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; ii. The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; iii. 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.

The appeal site lies within the Green Belt and comprises a converted, detached two storey dwelling that previously operated as a commercial garage. Positioned on elevated ground above [site address] and forming part of a cluster of buildings, the dwelling has been extended since its formation, and an adjacent domestic garage has also been added.

The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. Paragraph 153 of the Framework confirms that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 154 specifies that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless an exception applies. One such exception, at (c), allows for 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 GB1 of the Calderdale Local Plan 2018/19 – 2032/33 (LP) mirrors national Green Belt policy, including adopting the same approach to extensions to buildings.

The Framework does not define what constitutes a disproportionate addition, and neither party has referred me to any relevant local guidance on this matter. The proposed single storey extension would attach to the building’s existing two storey addition, infilling across most of the width of a current patio area which separates the dwelling and the garage.

The Council calculates that the proposal, when taken together with existing extensions but not the garage, would result in the volume of the dwelling being extended over and above the ‘original building’ by 70%. The appellant does not dispute this figure.

In combination with the existing two storey addition, and despite its set-back position, the proposal would cause the building’s east, road-facing elevation to extend to more than twice its original width. Furthermore, by projecting almost up to the garage, the scheme would significantly erode the current sense of separation between the two buildings, in doing so resulting in the garage appearing as a further substantial enlargement of the dwelling.

Taken all together, these additions, through their combined size and mass, would unduly dominate the modest proportions of the original building. Consequently, although the proposed extension is itself subordinate and would add only a relatively small amount of additional footprint and volume, I find that the cumulative effect of the existing and proposed extensions would amount to disproportionate additions to the original dwelling. The appeal scheme would therefore be inappropriate development within the Green Belt as defined by the Framework and Policy GB1 of the LP.

The Framework states that an essential characteristic of Green Belts is their openness. In spatial terms, although positioned between the two existing buildings, the proposal would occupy an area that is currently only hard-landscaped, and its built volume would therefore inevitably reduce spatial openness.

Visually, due to its relatively discreet siting and limited scale, only the upper part of the extension would be visible from [site address] , with height differences and boundary planting providing a degree of screening. Its presence would, though, be more noticeable in views from the adjacent farm track at the site’s access point.

On this basis, I find that there would be a moderate yet appreciable reduction in Green Belt openness. In accordance with paragraph 153 of the Framework, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness.

The appellant refers to the historic removal of the property’s permitted development rights for solely the reason of safeguarding neighbour amenity. Nevertheless, there is no information before me to indicate that the proposal would in any event fall within permitted development rights, were they available.

I acknowledge that the most recently permitted extension to the dwelling included the erection of an open porch on the same elevation as the proposal, and I note that this has not been constructed. However, due to the significant differences in their respective design, scale and bulk, I am not persuaded that the far larger proposal can reasonably be regarded as an alternative to that approved porch, as the appellant suggests.

I recognise that the extension would provide increased living space for the appellant’s family, however this is a private benefit that attracts only limited weight in support of the appeal.

Although the proposal, by virtue of the suitability of its design and materials, would not harm the character or appearance of the host dwelling or the surrounding area, this is a neutral consideration in policy terms and therefore weighs neither for nor against the scheme.

Overall, the factors weighing in support of the proposal do not clearly outweigh the totality of harm arising from inappropriateness and the harm to the openness of the Green Belt, which attract substantial weight against the development. As a result, the very special circumstances required to justify the development are not demonstrated.

I have found that the proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations which indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.