Appeal 6006620

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey side extension at [site address] , Bridgeyate, [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P25/02788/HH, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: 0100; 0110; 0200; 0201; 0202; and 0300.

The external materials of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The main issue is 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 host dwelling is a detached 2-storey house within a row of other properties that extend along one side of [address]. To the rear of the properties are open fields and on the opposite side of the road are commercial premises behind a reasonably wide tree lined boundary. The appeal site is located within the Bristol and Bath Green Belt beyond any designated settlement boundary.

The proposal would replace the existing single storey conservatory with a 2-storey extension.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that development is inappropriate in the Green Belt unless it falls within 8 exceptions. The Council has found the proposal to be disproportionate to the host dwelling and paragraph 154 c) of the Framework requires that the extension or alteration of a building does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

Gloucestershire Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (LP) Policy PSP7 refers directly to the Framework. [name] 3 of that policy concerned with what is a proportionate addition to a building. It states that in general a volume increase of up to 30% would likely be proportionate, and an increase exceeding 50% is likely to be considered disproportionate.

Although the Framework does not provide a definition of ‘disproportionate additions’ the percentages set out in LP Policy PSP7 would be a reasonable starting point. Nevertheless, the use of the word ‘likely’ within the policy and its requirement for careful assessment of scale and proportion if the volume increase falls between 30% and 50%, confirms that planning judgement should still be used.

The Council has calculated that the proposal would constitute an overall increase in volume of 44% but when combined with the volume of previous extensions this would increase to 65%. The appellant has not commented on these figures though has identified that the percentage change in building footprint would be smaller.

However, the proposal would be modest in size and largely within the footprint of the existing conservatory. It would be set back from the front elevation of the host dwelling and would not extend beyond the rear elevation. The proposed first floor would be setback from the ground floor, and the overall height would be lower than the existing ridge of the host dwelling. This would mean the proposal would be visually subservient to the host dwelling and not overwhelm it. It would add additional volume, but this would be largely contained within the existing built envelope of the property and would not significantly add to the overall scale.

Consequently, the proposal, although potentially exceeding the 50% outlined in LP Policy PSP7, would not overwhelm the host dwelling in terms of massing due to the subservient form and modest size of that proposed and would retain this property’s overall scale. Thus, in this specific instance, it is not found that the proposed extension would result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. The proposal would therefore comply with Paragraph 154 c) of the Framework and would not cause the harm LP Policy PSP7 seeks to prevent.

As the proposal would not be inappropriate development, it is not necessary to further consider the effect of the proposal on openness or the purposes of including land in the Green Belt, nor is it necessary to consider very special circumstances.

The Council has not found harm in relation to design, character and appearance, living conditions, highway safety, parking, and a nearby non-designated heritage asset. There is nothing before me to conclude otherwise.

The appellant has highlighted 3 appeals1, it is not found they relate to this case as they 1 was not in the Green Belt, 1 was assessed under a different part of Framework Paragraph 154 and there were very special circumstances in the third. 1 APP/P0119/W/23/3323465, APP/P0119/W/25/3363032, and APP/P0119/D/25/3374214

The main parties have not suggested any specific conditions so in addition to securing commencement within the relevant statutory timeframe, I have also imposed conditions requiring adherence to the approved plans and that matching materials should be used to ensure the proposal integrates acceptably within the character and appearance of the host dwelling.

For the reasons given above the appeal scheme would comply with the development plan when read as a whole and there are no sufficiently weighted material considerations, including the Framework, which would indicate a decision otherwise. The appeal is, therefore, allowed.