Single storey rear extension, garage conversion works and alterations to side elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 April 2017 by Timothy C King BA (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 2nd May 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/H1515/D/17/3169618 594 Rayleigh Road, Hutton, Brentwood, CM13 1SG  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr I Cemal against the decision of Brentwood Borough Council.  The application Ref 16/01443/FUL, dated 18 October 2016 was refused by notice dated 9 December 2016.  The development proposed is ‘Single storey rear extension, garage conversion works and alterations to side elevation.’ Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are: i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); ii) the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt, and whether the proposal would result in any other harm; and iii)if it is inappropriate development whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness and by reason of any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Reasons Whether the proposal is inappropriate development 3. The appeal property is a detached two storey dwellinghouse which I observed from my site visit has already been extended at both ground and upper floor levels. Particularly notable are a spacious single-storey addition postioned at the rear reaching towards the western boundary, and also a substantial dormer-type roof extension protruding from the rear roofplane. 4. The proposal seeks to square-off the rear elevation by projecting the extended building line at ground floor level across the dwelling’s full width. This would involve a depth of some 5.85m, a ground floor layout reconfiguration and Appeal Decision APP/H1515/D/17/3169618 2 associated alterations to the side elevation. The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt. 5. The Council considers that the proposal would be inappropriate development as it conflicts with the requirements of Policies GB1 and GB2 of the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan (LP). Whilst this might be the case I note that the LP was adopted in 2005 and thereby it pre-dates the more contemporary guidance on proposed development in the Green Belt provided by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). In the circumstances I am attaching greater weight to the Framework as to the acceptability of the proposal at appeal. 6. The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. All development is inappropriate unless, in the case of any new building constructed, it falls within one of the exceptions referred to in paragraph 89 of the Framework. This includes the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 7. The Framework provides no clear guidance over what may, or may not amount to disproportionate additions. In this particular instance the Council, in its case report, estimates that when taking the proposed development into account the cumulative increase would involve an extended footprint of some 206%. No estimation as to floorspace figures are given and there is an absence of any detail as to the planning status of the extensions already carried out. Similarly, this is true of the appellant’s Statement which makes no reference to the dwelling’s extension from its original state whatsoever. In the circumstances, I am left only with the observations gained from my site visit. 8. Although I am unable to verify the figure provided by the Council as to the footprint increase it is clear that, when adding to the existing large ground floor extension, as is here proposed, the totality increase on the size of the original building, along with the dormer extension, would be considerable. Indeed, I would consider that from the sizeable various extensions taken together the original building’s form would be overwhelmingly altered. On this basis I consider that the increase would be disproportionate to the original position. 9. On this main issue I thereby conclude that the proposal would amount to inappropriate development within the Green Belt for the purposes of the Framework. It is also in material conflict with LP Policy GB1. The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt, and any other resultant harm 10. The Framework states that an essential characteristic of Green Belts is their openness and that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land within them permanently open. In this instance the Council considers that the openness of the Green Belt would be compromised by the proposal. The proposal would involve only infilling the existing recess and in this particular context, despite the increase in built form, I consider that the additional impact on the openness of the Green Belt would be minimal. Appeal Decision APP/H1515/D/17/3169618 3 11. The Council has not identified that any other harm would result from the proposal and I see no reason to disagree with this assessment. Very special circumstances 12. Given that I have found that the proposal would amount to inappropriate development within the Green Belt it is left to consider whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. The appellant makes the point that the proposal, which he considers would represent a better design than that which exists, would satisfy personal needs. He also cites a variety in footprint size amongst neighbouring dwellings and that the proposed extension would be visually subordinate to the host dwelling. 13. I have had regard to these matters and the degree of mitigation that such factors might provide but I consider that, even when taken together, they do not override the presumption against the inappropriate development that I have identified so as to make the development justifiable. Conclusion 14. Although I have not identified that any significant harm would result to the openness of the Green Belt from the proposal, or for that matter any other harm to interests of acknowledged importance, this is outweighed by the consideration that the development is inappropriate for the purposes of the Framework, and would be harmful to the Green Belt. Following on from this finding, I conclude that very special circumstances necessary to justify the development have not been demonstrated. 15. For the above reasons, and having had regard to all matters raised, the appeal does not succeed. Timothy C King INSPECTOR