Demolition of existing single storey rear extension and erection of two storey rear extension (revised scheme)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 September 2017 by Mrs Zoё Hill BA(Hons) Dip Bldg Cons(RICS) MRTPI IHBC an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 25 September 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/P4415/D/17/3178644 1 The Avenue, Carr, Rotherham S66 8PP  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 S Smith against the decision of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref: RB2017/0566, dated 7 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 5 June 2017.  The development proposed is described as the demolition of existing single storey rear extension and erection of two storey rear extension (revised scheme). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are: (a) Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; (b) The effect on the purposes of the Green Belt and on openness; (c) The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area having regard to the approved scheme; and, (d) Would the harm by reason of inappropriateness if so found, and any other harm, be clearly outweighed by other considerations. If so, would this amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal. Reasons Green Belt 3. The appeal proposal relates to a two storey hipped roof extension situated at the rear of 1 The Avenue which is a semi-detached property. The proposed extension would be set in from the boundary with the adjoining property in order to preserve the daylight and outlook for the occupiers of that house. 4. It is undisputed that the appeal sites lies within the Green Belt. In this location development is restricted to a number of purposes in both local and national Appeal Decision APP/P4415/D/17/3178644 2 planning policy. The extension or alteration of a building is not inappropriate provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 5. In considering the appeal extension I accept that the Framework does not define what is or is not disproportionate. Nor does Policy CS 4 of the Rotherham local plan - Core Strategy 2013-2028 (adopted in September 2014) (the CS) which establishes that the Rotherham Green Belt will be protected from inappropriate development. Policy ENV1.3 of the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan (1999) which was taken forward as part of the Local Plan, explains that extensions to existing dwellings in the Green Belt will be only permitted where the extension represents a minor addition to the original dwelling and is so sited and designed to reflect the architectural style of the original dwelling. It also makes it clear that the Council will have regard to compatibility with detailed Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on the size design and scale of such extensions. 6. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Document ‘Development in the Green Belt’ (2013) (SPD) replaces an earlier SPG. It sets out that an extension should not exceed more than 33% of the volume of the original building and explains how this will be calculated. It explains that an extension of more than 33% would constitute a disproportionate extension, represent inappropriate development and therefore very special circumstances will need to be demonstrated. It also explains that even if the 33% limit is adhered to the size, form and materials must also be suitable in relation to the host building. The SPD is clearly related to development plan policy and largely reflects the Framework. It is therefore a matter to which I attach significant weight. 7. Whilst there is nothing in the Framework to specify this volume of addition, it seems to me a reasonable level to prevent disproportionate additions and provides for consistency in local decision making. 8. The proposal does not adhere to the local policy threshold and, as an extension of some 39%, it seems to me it represents a disproportionate extension. Thus, I conclude that the development represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Other Green Belt Matters including Openness 9. The proposed extension would not particularly impact on the purposes of the Green Belt insofar as Green Belts seek to: check unrestricted sprawl; prevent merging of neighbouring towns; safeguard the countryside from encroachment; preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and, assist in urban regeneration. 10. However, the proposed extension would create additional built volume and so, whether or not the extension is seen with other buildings, the development would impinge on openness which is one of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt. This harm counts against the scheme. Character and Appearance 11. The officer’s report makes it clear that the fall-back scheme (RB2016/00911) was specifically designed by the appellant to adhere to the 33% threshold having been told an initial scheme would be refused because of its size. That extant scheme is not of a particularly good design in relation to the character Appeal Decision APP/P4415/D/17/3178644 3 of the host property, nonetheless the appellant sought it and the Council approved it in September 2016 thereby confirming the design to be acceptable. 12. There is no evidence before me to demonstrate why the flat roof could not be built to be acceptable in maintenance terms. The appeal scheme represents a more sympathetic design which would better reflect the character and appearance of the host property than the extant, flat roofed, scheme although the awkward and uncharacteristic chamfered corner near to the attached property would remain. However, this is not a matter which I consider represents a ‘very special circumstance’ as it simply improves upon something which has already been considered to be acceptable such that it has relatively recently gained planning permission. 13. Further, whilst the SPD sets out some flexibility to the 33% threshold, it explains the type of circumstance under which the threshold might be exceeded but none of those circumstances apply here. Notably, the dwelling is not particularly small and currently has three first floor bedrooms and a first floor bathroom. Thus, this case relates to a simple proposal to extend an existing dwelling rather than exceptionally bringing a small house up to modern standards. Planning Balance 14. I conclude that the harm by reason of inappropriateness and harm to openness is not clearly outweighed by other considerations such as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Z H R Hill Inspector