Demolition of existing single storey extensions to rear and replacement with oak framed two storey extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 September 2017 by I Radcliffe BSc(Hons) MRTPI MCIEH DMS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 2nd October 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/D/17/3178030 Highfield House, Peover Lane, Snelson, Macclesfield, Cheshire SK11 9AW  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 Brian Barso against the decision of Cheshire East Council.  The application Ref 17/1484M, dated 16 March 2017, was refused by notice dated 12 May 2017.  The development proposed is demolition of existing single storey extensions to rear and replacement with oak framed two storey extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are;  whether the proposal is inappropriate development for the purposes of development plan policy and the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’);  the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and the character and appearance of the area; and,  if the development is inappropriate, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Reasons Inappropriate development 3. Paragraph 89 of the Framework advises that the extension of a building, which does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, is not inappropriate development. Policy PG3 of the recently adopted Cheshire East Local Plan repeats the wording of the Framework. Policy GC12 of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan advises that an extension proposal will be considered to be disproportionate if the development would result in an increase in floor space of more than 30% of the original building. 4. The Macclesfield Borough Local Plan predates the Framework. However, national policy at the time it was adopted in relation to the extension of dwellings in the Green Belt is the same as today. In providing local detail as to when the size of an extension would be considered to be disproportionate Appeal Decision APP/R0660/D/17/3178030 2 policy GC12 is therefore consistent with paragraphs 11 and 89 of the Framework and I attach full weight to it. 5. The proposed two storey rear extension would replace an existing single storey rear extension. The Council states that the proposal would result in a dwelling with a floor space 82% larger than the original dwelling. This has not been refuted by the appellant. By any reasonable estimate this would be a considerable increase in size that would be well above the up to 30% increase in floor space supported by the development plan. 6. Whilst the proposed development would occupy a smaller footprint than the existing single storey rear extension, its second storey would result in an addition that would be far larger in size. With its greater length, projecting first floor en-suite bathroom and taller height it would also be significantly larger than the two storey rear extension in a lapsed permission which also included other alterations and a basement to the property (ref 14/1144M). 7. Taking all these matters into account, I therefore conclude that the proposed extension would be a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building, contrary to policy GC12 of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan, policy PG3 of the Cheshire East Local Plan and paragraph 89 of the Framework. The proposal would therefore constitute inappropriate development. Such development would, by definition, be harmful to the Green Belt as described in paragraph 87 of the Framework. Openness 8. Paragraph 79 of the Framework advises that the fundamental aim of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It also advises that the essential characteristic of Green Belts is their openness and their permanence. 9. The proposed extension would markedly increase the scale and bulk of the house. The overall effect would be of a significantly larger, more intrusive building whose increase in scale would be readily apparent in medium distance public views from the public footpath in the field to the north. The proposal would therefore also result in notable harm to openness. Character and appearance 10. Highfield House is a two storey gable ended dwelling that faces Peover Lane but is set back from it behind a tall roadside hedge. Beyond its garden on its remaining three sides it is surrounded by open fields. The proposed extension would be more than double the length of the house at two storey level and would be set down only marginally from the height of the roof of the dwelling. As a result, it would be a dominant extension that would not be subservient to the house and would detract from its appearance. The resulting significant adverse effect caused to the character and appearance of the area would be self- evident in public views from the public footpath to the north and in private views from within the site. 11. The use of rustic materials, such as weatherboarding to clad the oak frame of the building and reclaimed slates on the roof, would not overcome the adverse effects I have described. 1 Paragraph 1 advises that the Framework provides a framework within which distinctive local plans can be produced. Appeal Decision APP/R0660/D/17/3178030 3 12. For all of these reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would demonstrably harm the character and appearance of the area, contrary to policies BE1, DC1 and DC2 of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan which seek good design. Other considerations 13. I have found that the proposal would be harmful to the Green Belt. However, no other considerations have been put forward by the appellant in support of the proposed development. Conclusions 14. The proposal represents inappropriate development, which by definition, would be harmful to the Green Belt. I have also found that there would be material harm to openness. Paragraph 88 of the Framework advises that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. There would also be demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the area. Clearly, therefore the degree of harm caused would be significant and I attach substantial weight to the totality of harm caused. No other considerations have been put forward by the appellant to outweigh this harm. I therefore conclude that very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. As such the proposal would be contrary to the Framework, policy GC12 of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan and policy PG3 of the Cheshire East Local Plan. Ian Radcliffe Inspector