Appeal 6007669

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 to clearly outweigh that harm.

The appeal site (No.76) is originally a mid-twentieth century single storey house that has been extended at the rear and is located in a good-sized plot within a line of originally similar dwellings that form part of the settlement identified as [name] located in the West Midlands Green Belt (WMGB). In many cases these dwellings have been substantially extended including by the enlargement of their roof spaces to provide additional accommodation as appears to be the case with the neighbouring property No.[address]. However, what otherwise appears to be the original dwelling at No.76 has only been enlarged by the addition of single-storey low-profile or flat-roofed accommodation. The additional accommodation proposed would be provided substantially within the extent of the existing house footprint and by increasing the height of the ridge to an extent which is consistent with its neighbours. Overall, the works proposed would be of a scale and character that accords with the setting of the site and the existing building.

The Council refer to a conflict with size limits for extensions to dwellings set out in Policy H14 of the Warwick District Local Plan (2017) (WDLP) which relates to ‘Extensions to dwellings in the [name] however as the explanatory text to the Policy makes clear the limit of 30%1 would not apply to the appeal site because it is not within [name] but within the [name] settlement, identified as a limited infill village in the WDLP. Consequently, I find no conflict with the WDLP in this regard.

However, the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) requires that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt stating that development, subject to specified exceptions, is inappropriate and, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Paragraph 154(c) states that extensions to buildings which are not cumulatively disproportionate to the original building would be not-inappropriate and therefore not harmful to the purposes of the green belt.

The dwelling has been enlarged previously to an extent which, according to the Council, has already increased its size substantially such that the result of the proposed works would be to double the size of the original building. Although the works have been designed to largely remain within the existing footprint the resulting doubling of floor area and related building size would be disproportionate to the original building such that the exception provided by Paragraph 154(c) is not available. Consequently, the development proposed would be harmful to the Green Belt and permitted only if very special circumstances arise which clearly outweigh that harm.

I note the representations of the appellant, including the potential for a replacement dwelling which could result in a more impactful built form and the policy and contextual argument as to the location and other development. Whilst such may be relevant to consideration of an impact of development on openness, the question of proportionality relates only to the original building. Fallback arguments and other reasons such as the limited visual impact and the adjacency of other large dwellings are those which would be engaged in an ordinary planning balance2 and, in my consideration, are insufficient to meet the threshold of ‘very special circumstances’ set out in Paragraph 153 of the Framework which requires that any harm to the green belt is ‘clearly outweighed’ by other considerations.

Consequently, for the reasons given and taking all matters raised into account, the appeal cannot succeed.