Appeal 6006255

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 proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and development plan policy; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; 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 necessary to justify the proposal.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework sets out that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate other than in a number of specified exceptions including c) 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. In this context, original building means the dwelling as originally built or as the building existed on 1 July 1948 (whichever is the later).

Paragraph 155 of the Framework sets out other circumstances where development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate, including where the development would utilise grey belt land, not fundamentally undermine the purposes of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan, and meet all of the other criteria in paragraph 155.

The Framework defines grey belt as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land (PDL) and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of the Green Belt purposes (a), (b), or (d) set out in paragraph 143 and excludes land where footnote 7 would provide a strong reason for refusing or restricting development.

The appellant contends that the rear garden historically contained a building and submitted OS mapping imagery and evidence of rubble found during garden works in support. On this basis, they contend that the land should be regarded as PDL. The remains of this structure appear to have been removed, so that part of the site may no longer be PDL having regard to the definition in the Framework. However, the proposal is to build over existing permanent structures, therefore the part of the site to which the appeal relates can reasonably be considered PDL.

The site is in a village and would not strongly contribute to purposes (a), (b), or (d) for the purposes of paragraph 143. However, even if the site does meet the definition of grey belt land and criterion (a) of paragraph 155, there is no demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed, and it has not been demonstrated that it would be in a sustainable location. Therefore, it would not meet all of the criteria of paragraph 155 and would not fall within that exception.

The appellant contends that Green Belt policies should not apply to grey belt land, however it is clear from the Framework definition that grey belt is part of the Green Belt, therefore all relevant national and local policies apply.

Policy STRAT 9 of the Chester Local Plan Part One (2015) (LPP1) and DM21 of the [name] and Chester Local Plan Part Two (2019) (LPP2) confirm that proposals for the development of land in the Green Belt must accord with Green Belt policy as set out in the Framework, including that extensions should not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The supporting text to Policy DM21 of the LPP2 sets out that as a general guide, subordinate and small scale extensions should not increase the size of the original dwelling by more than 30%.

The evidence submitted indicates that the existing single storey side projection is likely to have been in place prior to 1948. The Council has given different calculations for the total additional floorspace as a result of the appeal proposal and recently constructed extensions. Nevertheless, even if the lowest figure were used, the proposal would result in a 58% increase in floorspace compared with the original building. This would be a substantial increase in floorspace and the overall scale and volume of built form relative to the modest original building and, as such, would constitute disproportionate additions over and above the original building. Therefore, the proposal would not meet the exception set out at paragraph 154(c) of the Framework.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the Framework and Policy STRAT 9 of the LPP1 and DM21 of the LPP2, which, taken together, seek to resist development in the Green Belt other than in a few exceptions which are not met by the proposed development. The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt.

Paragraph 142 of the Framework sets out that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

Due to their volume, the extensions would undoubtedly have a spatial effect on the openness of the Green Belt. Given the openness of the site, and the consequent visibility of the extensions, the spatial and visual effects of the proposed development would result in modest harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

I conclude, therefore, that the proposal would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt, thereby conflicting with the aims of including land within the Green Belt when assessed against the Framework.

[address] Cottage is a rural dwelling set on a modest, open corner plot and shares a boundary with a neighbouring property. Surrounding properties retain their cottage and rural like appearances and character and are typically modest in size, as was the original appeal dwelling.

The Council accepted that the width of the proposed first-floor side element accords with the Supplementary Planning Guidance, as it would be no more than half the width of the original dwelling, but identified harm arising from the absence of a 1 m set-back.

The proposed first floor side extension would increase the width of the dwelling at first floor level, altering the appearance of the frontage and would therefore be readily apparent in public views. Its lack of a set-down in ridge height or set-back from the front elevation would result in a continuation of the existing dwelling, cumulatively creating a large, dominant mass. As such, the proposal would not read as a subordinate addition to the host dwelling but would instead increase its overall scale. This would fail to retain the modest scale of the original dwelling’s frontage, as the original section would no longer be readily legible.

The rear element would also be somewhat prominent, given the open nature of the site. Whilst it would not significantly alter the cottage character as seen from the frontage, it would nevertheless increase the overall size of the dwelling, thereby further eroding its cottage-like character.

The proposal would therefore fail to be in keeping with the character and appearance of the area and would not demonstrate a subordinate relationship to the original dwelling.

Consequently, the proposal would conflict with Policy ENV6 of the LPP1, and policies DM3 and DM21 of the LPP2, which require proposals to respect local character, be sympathetic to the characteristics of the development site, its relationship with its surroundings and that the resulting development is in keeping with the character and appearance of the area and is subordinate to the original dwelling. The proposal also fails to accord with paragraph 135 of the Framework, which requires that proposals are visually attractive as a result of good architecture and establish or maintain a strong sense of place.

It would also conflict with the design policies of the Framework and the guidance on extensions in the [address] Extensions and Domestic Outbuildings Supplementary Planning Document.

The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should only be approved in very special circumstances. I have also found that the proposal would result in modest harm to openness and to the character and appearance of the area.

Paragraph 153 of the Framework specifies that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness, and that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Whilst the proposal would provide further accommodation to suit the appellant’s family life, I have not been provided with any information to demonstrate that the dwelling is not suitable for occupancy in its current, recently extended form. There would therefore be benefits to the occupants of the dwelling, however these are limited and therefore I do not consider that they outweigh the identified harm. As such, the very special circumstances that would be needed to justify the proposal do not exist.

For the reasons given, the overall conclusion is therefore 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.