Appeal 6008538

The appeal is dismissed.

Planning permission was previously granted for the erection of a part single storey and part double storey rear extension in 2021 (the 2021 permission)1. I am informed the works the subject of this appeal proposal have already been completed. From what I saw, the works appear to reflect those in this appeal application, involving, amongst other things, the erection of a two-storey rear extension. This appeal scheme differs primarily in that it has a greater depth than that approved under the 2021 permission. The application now seeks to regularise the development.

The Council also amended the description of the development and I have used this description in the banner heading above which more accurately encompasses the various elements of the appeal scheme, albeit that I have removed the word ‘retrospective’ as this is not an act of development. The description reflects the proposals on the plans before me.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • If so, the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and 1 CB/21/00756/FULL • 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.

[site address] is located within the Green Belt. The Framework establishes that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate development unless it falls within specified exceptions. Paragraph 154 includes amongst other exceptions: (c) the extension or alteration of a building provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Policy SP4 of the [site address] Local Plan 2015-2035 (2021) (Local Plan) defers to the Framework in this regard, so it is consistent with the Framework.

For pre-1948 buildings the Framework defines the original building as it existed on 1 July 1948. It does not detail what a disproportionate addition means, nor does it specify volumetric or other standards, or that comparisons are to be made with reference to the size and scale of the existing layout. Rather, it is an objective test which could include, amongst other things, the floor area, volume and form of the relevant building. Though guidance only, the [site address] [name] ([name]) quantifies matters further by recommending that the original building should not be added to by more than no more than 60% of footprint, floorspace and volume.

Prior to the recent extension, [site address] had been previously extended. It appears that those extensions were demolished as part of the present development. The Council and the appellant provide different figures for the original dwelling size. The appellant asserts that the present development falls below a 60% increase but no details of this assessment are before me, nor any plan of the original building layout. The Council, based on pre-1974 plotting sheets and original floor space and footprint, consider the current appeal scheme to be much in excess of the 60% guidance figure. The Council sets out a reasoned explanation as to its findings and measurements for the original building, which are of an order and description reflected on the plans before me. Aside of disagreeing, the appellant does not provide a sufficiently justified or compelling rebuttal of this. Based upon the evidence before me, I give greater weight to the Council’s view on this matter.

While noting the above, an assessment of whether a development amounts to a disproportionate addition is a matter of planning judgment and each case must be assessed on its merits. The current development amounts to a substantial addition to the bulk, volume, mass and floorspace of the property which I find to be disproportionate over and above the size of the original building. No case is made that the development would fall within any of the other exceptions and relevant thresholds or tests, as listed in the Framework.

I therefore conclude that the development amounts to inappropriate development within the Green Belt. It would conflict with the aims of Policy SP4 of the Local Plan and the Framework insofar as these state that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. Substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt.

The essential characteristics of the Green Belt are their openness and spatial permanence. The openness of the Green Belt has a spatial and visual aspect. The bulk of the extension, results in an addition to the footprint and an increase in mass over the size of the original building. To that extent, the development affects the openness of the Green Belt through the increase of the amount of built form on site.

The development is to the rear of the property which is well secluded and sited within two neighbouring properties which have also been extended. The appeal site is also of a significant length and not open to public views. As a consequence, and notwithstanding immediate neighbouring residents, the rear extension would not be publicly visible or discernible beyond the site.

Consequently, I conclude that the development would not preserve Green Belt openness, albeit in the context of the scale of the proposal, and its location at the rear of the dwelling this would be limited. Taking both spatial and visual effects into account, the development has a limited adverse effect on the openness of the Green Belt

The 2021 permission allowed, amongst other things, for the erection of a two-storey rear extension of a depth of some 3.3 metres and a part single storey rear extension of some 1.5 metres which would have resulted in an extension of a markedly lesser scale than that constructed. For a fallback position to be a material planning consideration there must be a real prospect of it being implemented and there to be more than a merely theoretical possibility.

I have very little information of that previous consent before me such as whether or not it was lawfully commenced, its expiry date, and substantive views as to whether or not in light of what I saw of the current development, it could be lawfully implemented. However, in spite of some doubts in respect of the foregoing, even if I were to conclude that this permission could still be lawfully implemented, on the basis of the information before me the scheme approved under the 2021 permission has a lesser floorspace, volume and bulk than the appeal scheme. The extension proposed within the 2021 permission was considered to be a subordinate addition where by contrast the appeal scheme results in greater harm being caused to the Green Belt and its openness by its bulk and height. Consequently, for these reasons I consider the fallback position carries limited weight.

In assessing the impact of the appeal scheme on the character and appearance of the area, the Council compared it to its two neighbouring properties. Both of those properties have been subject to rear and side extensions, including in one case the incorporation of projecting gable ends, and the appeal scheme mirrors a projecting gable end. The development does not extend any further into the rear garden or protrude significantly beyond these properties as extended. In this regard I would agree with the Council that the appeal scheme as constructed does not give rise to a detrimental harm to the character and appearance of the area. Having regard to the pre-existing situation and that which might have resulted from the construction of the suggested fallback scheme, the effect of the appeal scheme upon the character and appearance of the area, overall, would be a neutral one.

No concerns have been identified by the Council regarding the effect of the development upon the living conditions of neighbouring residents,and based upon what I saw and the evidence before me I see no reason to disagree with this assessment. This would also be a neutral matter in the balance.

Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Substantial weight should be given to any identified harm to the Green Belt. The policy compliance and factors and benefits set out by the appellant attract limited weight. They do not clearly outweigh the harm identified to the Green Belt, which carries substantial weight, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with Policy SP4 of the Local Plan, and the Framework.

The proposal is contrary to the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework read as a whole, and there are no considerations advanced, including the policies of the Framework, which outweigh this finding. Accordingly, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed. .