Appeal 6006163

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: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes 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.

The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of the exceptions in paragraph 154 applies. One such exception at Paragraph 154 c) 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. Policies STP7 and STP8 of the Northumberland Local Plan 2016-2036 (2022) (NLP) reflect the approach of the Framework.

The proposal would introduce several extensions to the appeal dwelling and the erection of a two-storey detached garage. The proposed garage would have a functional connection to the main house, as well as a close physical and visual relationship to it. As such, the garage would appear as a normal domestic adjunct and could be considered as an extension in conjunction with the other proposed alterations to the dwelling. I therefore consider the proposal as a whole falls to be considered under paragraph 154 c) of the Framework.

Neither the Framework nor the NLP define “disproportionate”. It is therefore a matter of planning judgement. The Council state in their officer report that they have historically considered that a volume increase of 50% or more would be disproportionate. It is not disputed that when making a volumetric comparison between the building as originally built and the building as proposed to be extended, together with any existing extensions the increase in volume would far exceed 50%.

The proposal would noticeably increase the depth of the appeal property, and the central rear gable would introduce additional bulk at first floor level. Furthermore, the proposed garage’s generous footprint and massing would add to the overall visual impression of built form within the plot. The proposal would fill almost entirely the width of the plot when viewed from the street, with limited set back from the side boundaries and between the main dwelling and proposed garage. Overall, the proposed additions would result in a substantial increase in footprint and volume, in combination with the existing extensions.

For the reasons given, I conclude that the proposal would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building and would not comply with the exception at paragraph 154 c) of the Framework. It has not been suggested that the proposal would meet any of the other listed exceptions at Framework paragraph 154 and there is nothing before me that would lead me to disagree. As such, the proposal fails to meet any of the exceptions set out in the Framework and would therefore be inappropriate development, which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

The Framework sets out that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Openness has both a visual and spatial dimension.

The proposal would reduce the spatial aspect of the site’s openness through increasing the footprint and spread of built form on the appeal site. In particular, the proposed garage would create a more sprawling form of development than currently exists due to it occupying a space that is currently devoid of built form.

While the rear extension would largely be screened from view from the public realm, the proposed garage and front porch extension and the resultant increase in built form would harmfully reduce openness in visual terms.

Overall, the proposal would result in moderate harm to openness. Given the location of the appeal site within the village envelope, no undue harm would arise to the five purposes of including land within the Green Belt, which is a neutral matter, weighing neither for nor against the proposal.

There is a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) 1 that is said to include a single-storey rear extension, rear roof dormer, conversion of garage, erection of detached outbuilding to house a swimming pool, installation of a flagpole and air source heat pump at the appeal site. I have no clear reason to doubt that the appellant would seek to implement the LDC scheme in the event that planning permission is not forthcoming for this appeal. As such, the LDC scheme is a fallback position.

It is indicated that the LDC permits a dispersed pattern of development, introducing multiple built elements across the curtilage and a substantial cumulative increase in volumetric built form. However, I do not have detailed information about the LDC scheme, including any plans or elevations, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment on a scheme I have not seen. In the absence of any substantiated evidence regarding the layout, form, scale and appearance of the LDC scheme a full and detailed comparison with the appeal proposal cannot be made.

Even if I were to find the fallback position more harmful than the appeal scheme there is no mechanism before me to prevent both the LDC scheme and the appeal proposal being implemented. Furthermore, while the appellant would be willing to relinquish permitted development rights at the appeal site, this could not be achieved through a planning condition, as this would only be effective on the implementation of the appeal proposal permission, and would not prevent the LDC scheme or other permitted development being implemented beforehand. A completed planning obligation would be the mechanism to secure the removal of permitted development taking place and there is no such obligation before me. Consequently, I find the fallback position to have limited weight.

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would result in a moderate harmful loss of openness and no undue harm would arise to Green Belt purposes. The totality of the Green Belt harm attracts substantial weight. Very special circumstances will not exist unless harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The other considerations in the form of the LDC fallback position do not clearly outweigh the harm I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist and the proposal would conflict with the Green Belt protection aims of [name] STP7 and STP 8 and the Framework.

My above findings bring the proposal into conflict with the development plan, taken as a whole, and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, to indicate a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with it. Accordingly, 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.