Appeal 6007650

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issue is whether the development proposed would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and if so, whether very special circumstances exist that clearly outweigh harms arising.

The appeal site, [site address] (No.65) is a mid-twentieth century single storey house within a tightly arranged ribbon of residential development set behind a wide grass verge on the south-west side of [address], a rural road which eventually connects to the small settlement of [site address] . The ribbon of housing, with other sporadic development, is otherwise wholly surrounded by flat open land of the West Midlands Green Belt. Although there are examples of rear extension and alteration, No.65 appears to retain much of its original form in the street scene as a hipped-roof bungalow with five similar, low-lying, bungalows on its northern side.

The appeal site forms part of a line of development which, notwithstanding its built-up character, is defined as open countryside for the purposes of Policy H14 of the Warwick District Local Plan (2017) (WDLP). This Policy seeks to support extensions to dwellings in open countryside if they are not disproportionate which, in the Green Belt is defined as an increase of more than 30% in gross floor space over the original building. The Council indicate a very much larger increase would result from the proposal in terms of floor area and almost a doubling of built form by volume. On that basis there would appear to be a significant conflict with the provisions of the

The National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) requires that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt stating that development, is by definition, inappropriate. Exceptions to this generality that are relevant to this matter are found at Paragraphs 154 of the Framework including at (c) which provides for extensions to buildings that are not disproportionate to the size of the original building. Although the Framework does not define ‘disproportionate’ in empirical terms, the proposed near-doubling of floor area and of volume over the original building is such that I consider the proposal would amount to inappropriate development which, by definition, is harmful to the green belt.

Turning to other considerations, the ribbon of development on [address] includes a large number of two storey houses including No.65 which is a narrow two-storey detached house which ends a long line of two-storey houses on that side of the road. A large proportion of such dwellings along [address] are arranged in dwelling pairs in plots which are narrower than the appeal site and its low-set bungalow neighbours. However these bungalows, unlike the proposal, are designed with hipped roofs employing low-pitch interlocking tile roofs which reduce their bulk and height significantly compared to the surrounding development and accordingly contribute to the openness of that part of the WMGB.

In that context, because the proposal would add a full-width additional storey to No.65 including a steep pitched roof, it would, (alone but increasingly if applied as a precedent) substantially increase the sense of enclosure in the wider street scene due to its significant height increase across a full plot width. Consequently, and notwithstanding that the proposed development would be within an area of established residential development that includes a high proportion of taller dwellings, I conclude the proposed works, due to their bulk and height, would cause substantial harm to the openness of this part of the Green Belt.

The appellant has presented a fall-back position which explains the proposal to be a refined and comprehensive reworking of the existing property with betterment compared to a set of single-storey additions confirmed as lawful by approval W/25/1390. Whatever the merits of the proposed dwelling the appellant has not offered a legal agreement to ensure, were this appeal to be determined in their favour, that the extension works previously confirmed as lawful, or some variation or part of those works as provided by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO) might not be also implemented. Such works or any part of them alongside the proposed development, would exacerbate the harms I have previously identified .

I note the representations as to the ‘geometric incompatibility’ of the two proposals. However, I am not persuaded that implementation of the works proposed would be physically impossible if the building had, to some degree, been already extended at ground floor level by elements of permitted development, not necessarily those suggested. Nor am I satisfied that the result would be an enforceable breach of planning control substantially at variance1 with a granted consent in the way the appellant suggests. For these reasons, irrespective of the claimed merits of the proposal, I attach little weight to the suggested fallback position. 1 With the permission granted

I have concluded that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt which, by definition and by impact on openness, would be harmful to the purposes of the WMGB. The proposed development would conflict with the Framework and policies of the development plan as my reasoning explains. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated to clearly outweigh the harms identified and on that basis, taking all matters raised into account, the appeal cannot succeed.