Appeal 6008163

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to [name] and [name]. The appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to Roof alterations in the front roof slope. Planning permission is granted for alterations to the front-facing roof slope at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/0002316/HHA in so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted subject to the following

The works permitted are those appearing on the part of the drawings titled ‘[name] on DWG202501329PL003 Rev- together with Existing & Proposed Roof Plan DWG202501329PL006 Rev - A.

S79(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) affords powers to issue a split decision. The front dormer shown on the proposed front elevation is physically and functionally separate from the rear extension and outbuilding. The alteration to the front roof slope is therefore a clearly severable element of the scheme. I have considered the appeal on this basis and in my formal decision have amended the description of development to reflect these separate elements.

As indicated by the application form, the development has commenced and the roof alteration and rear extension were complete at the time of my site visit. The exterior fabric of the outbuilding was complete but had not been internally fitted out, however this does not affect my consideration of the main issues defined. I have determined this appeal accordingly, by reference to the submitted plans.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. • The effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt. • The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of the occupants of Newlands, with particular regard to outlook, daylight and sunlight. • 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 appeal site ( [site address] ) is located at the edge of, but within, the West Midlands Green Belt (WMGB), forming part of a ribbon of development fronting [site address] which likely originated in the decades of the mid-twentieth century having the spatial character of a well-defined built-up area that intrudes into the flat open land surrounding.

The works which are the subject of this appeal include, in relation to the street scene and the perimeter of the green belt along [site address] , an alteration to a front-facing dormer which has been enlarged, aligned with and joined to the adjacent upper storey of the original building. All other works, including the full-width rear extension to the house and the outbuilding at the extreme rear of the deep plot, lie well within the body of the WMGB.

Policy GB1 of the Coventry Local Plan 2017 states that inappropriate development will not be permitted in the Coventry Green Belt unless very special circumstances exist. It also states that development proposals, including those involving previously developed land and buildings in the Green Belt will be assessed in relation to the relevant national planning policy.

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. However, the exception provided at Paragraph 154(c) allows that extensions to buildings which are not disproportionate to the original building1 would not be inappropriate development and therefore not harmful to the purposes of the green belt.

The original building comprised a two-storey detached dwellinghouse with part of the built footprint at single storey, inset from plot boundaries and broadly aligned with adjacent dwellings. The Council indicate this had a floor area of approximately 126sq.m. and was significantly enlarged from its original form by two storey side and rear extensions increasing the height and width of the dwelling. It is not disputed that these additions combined with the rear extension under consideration in this appeal has added around 245sq.m of floor area; an increase approaching double the size of the original dwellinghouse. 1 Glossary to the Framework (Annex 2) specifies that an Original Building is a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was built originally.

Turning to the large masonry-built single storey outbuilding; this has further increased the built form within the site by approximately 106sq.m2. The outbuilding is not attached to the dwellinghouse. However, as the appellant recognises by their reference to the appeal at [address] Earlswood3, for the purposes of green belt policy the Courts have determined that a detached outbuilding can properly be regarded as an extension where, as a matter of fact and degree, it is functionally and spatially related to the host building. I consider that to be the case here; the outbuilding lies within the garden curtilage of the host dwelling and is plainly intended for use incidental to the occupation of the dwellinghouse.

On the figures provided4, therefore, the works which are the subject of this appeal5 have very significantly expanded the size of built form on the appeal site such that taking into account historic additions, the floor area of the original building has increased by approximately 350sq.m. [name] note the appellant correctly points to the absence of empirical guidance6 as to what would be ‘disproportionate’ in relation to the test set out at paragraph 154(c) of the Framework, floor area is, nevertheless, a reasonable guide to the physical size of a dwellinghouse. In this case, that the resulting building is several times larger than the original7 is a clear indication of a disproportionality of extension that has cumulatively arisen, and on that basis I consider the exception provided by Paragraph 154(c) is not available for the rear extension or outbuilding. I therefore conclude that these elements of the development are inappropriate development in the green belt.

Notwithstanding my conclusion on other matters, the Council’s assessment concluded the alterations to the front-facing dormer would be acceptable. The front-facing dormer extension has not increased the dwelling’s floorspace and has made only a negligible contribution to the size of the building and, by its position, has no meaningful impact upon the openness of the green belt. As discussed above, this roof alteration is clearly severable from the remainder of the scheme. For these reasons, with regard to this element of the works only, I consider green belt harm is absent. No other harms are identified. Consequently in regard to this element of the works alone I find that no conflict arises with Policy GB1 of the Coventry Local Plan 2017 or with the relevant provisions of the Framework as set out in my reasoning such that permission should be granted.

The appellant points to a lack of impact on the street scene and suggests that the works may have limited impact upon the openness of the Green Belt when viewed within the scale of the plot and the existing pattern of development along [site address] and because the works ‘do not extend development into previously undeveloped Green Belt land’. That, however, is to misconstrue the purposes of the Green Belt in terms of keeping land permanently open, irrespective of its visibility or use. 2 The Council indicate dimensions of 9.675m by 11m 3 APP/Q4625/D/22/3297617 4 The Council Officer Report. 5 Not including the alterations to the front-facing roof 6 Whether in the development plan or Framework, and having regard to the provisions of Framework Paragraph 154(c) 7 Stated by the Council to be 126 sq.m.

I now turn to the impact of the development upon openness which has both spatial and visual dimensions. Whilst the use of a private garden for hospitality and other social activity related to the occupation of the house is not a matter of planning control, it appears to me that the rear extension, by its strident and monolithic design with an expansive full width terrace, wide access doors and approach steps signal increased levels of outdoor activity commensurate with the enlarged size of the dwelling and its related capacity for occupancy. I consider, by their permanence and prominence, these features which are clearly intended to support the intensification of use of the residential garden in proximity to the main house.

Similarly, the detached outbuilding lies at the extreme end of a long, otherwise uncluttered, residential plot at significant distance from the ribbon of frontage development, but adjacent to the extensive open fields of the surrounding WMGB. The outbuilding intrudes substantially by its size, scale and position, upon the generally open character of the surrounding land, which includes rear parts of gardens. I note the appellant suggests this building would be ‘read in clear association with the host dwelling’ but this is to underline the spatial and visual impact of the building upon the whole length of rear garden which would, otherwise, be open land contributing positively to the purposes of the [name] therefore conclude that the rear extension and its associated terrace, together with the detached outbuilding, by their prominence and size, cause substantial harm to openness, additional to that which arises by reason of inappropriateness.

The appellant accepts the Waverley rear extension intrudes upon the 45 degree splay from habitable rooms of the adjacent dwelling’ Newlands’, the impact of its height is accentuated by the slight fall in ground level front-to-rear such that the terrace area and floor level is elevated at the rear. Further, the plot-filling width results in uncomfortable proximity to the boundary on each side such that opportunity to introduce intervening planting is absent. However, like [site address] , the neighbouring houses, Newlands and The Langlands, sit within wide plots with a south-westerly orientation and in such circumstances neither access to daylight nor outlook from the habitable rooms would be unduly affected by a single storey rear extension close to an adjacent boundary. Overall, the extensive area of wall over [address] to the intervening boundary with Langlands would tend to dominate the amenity area of the adjoining dwelling but not to an oppressive degree.

However, of concern in the circumstances described, noting what appears to be door-type openings at first floor level in the rear elevation and a lack of intervening trees, would be the potential for the flat roof of the extension to be used as a terrace or sitting out area with the possibility to directly overview the rear amenity areas of adjacent houses, however, were a permission to be granted, such use could be limited by condition.

For these reasons, I am satisfied the proposal would not harm the living conditions of the occupants of The Newlands. I therefore conclude there would not be conflict with Policy DE1 of the CLP which supports the provisions of the Council Householder Design Code.

[name] have found the proposal would not harm living conditions, as set out above, the rear extension and outbuilding would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would harm openness. At paragraph 153, the Framework requires substantial weight be given to any harm to the Green Belt.

Paragraph 152 of the Framework states inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 153 indicates that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The appellant points to a number of factors which, it is suggested, mean limited weight should be attached to any harm to the WMGB including because ‘a comparable rear extension could potentially be delivered under permitted development rights’, making a similar argument in relation to the detached outbuilding. However the appellant has not substantiated this point over which some doubt must exist, noting the meaning of ‘original building’ set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (GPDO) and the height and proximity to boundaries of both the outbuilding and rear extension. I have nothing before me to demonstrate the limitations set out in [name] and E of Schedule 1 of Part 2 of the GPDO might realistically be complied with, or, in the alternative, that buildings of equivalent size and location might be achieved within the limitations set out in the GPDO. A factor which attracts little weight in support of the development which has taken place.

[name] note the appeal decisions which have been referred to, and the decision of the Council in relation to the neighbouring property, as is clear from my reasoning, even if the examples appear to breach guidelines or policy this is not to an extent comparable with the size and impact of what is to be determined in this matter.

I find that these other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

The proposal would therefore conflict with Policy GB1 of the Coventry Local Plan 2017 which seeks to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development, unless very special circumstances exist.

A ‘plans’ condition to give clarity as to the extent of permission for retention of the front dormer is necessary but no other.

I have concluded that, other than the minor works relating to the front elevation, the development which is the subject of this appeal is inappropriate development which is harmful to the purposes of the Green Belt. [name] have found that the rear extension would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupants, no special circumstances exist to justify the grant of permission and, in consequence, the appeal cannot succeed with respect to the rear extension and the detached outbuilding. The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan taken as a whole.

However, as set out above, the Council accepts the front dormer would be acceptable, and I have no substantive evidence to suggest this element would harm the Green Belt nor result in any other harm. In the absence of conflict with the development plan, I conclude the appeal should be allowed insofar as it relates to the front dormer only.