Garage extension to the front elevation. Two storey and part single storey extension to the rear elevation. New front boundary wall with metal railings above (1.5m total height). Obscure glazed windows to side elevation

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 December 2017 by John Dowsett MA DipURP DipUD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 26th January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/A4520/D/17/3185017 5 Lawn Drive, West Boldon NE36 0AZ  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 Jose Queiruga against the decision of South Tyneside Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref: ST/0504/17/HFUL, dated 1 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 6 September 2017.  The development proposed is a garage extension to the front elevation. Two storey and part single storey extension to the rear elevation. New front boundary wall with metal railings above (1.5m total height). Obscure glazed windows to side elevation. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural matter 2. The description used by the Council on the decision notice more accurately describes the development proposed and I note that the appellant has adopted this on the appeal form. I have, therefore, also used this for the purposes of the appeal. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this appeal are:  Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies;  The effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt;  If the development is inappropriate, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations and amounts to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Reasons Whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt 4. The appeal building is located within the Green Belt. It is part of a small group of dwellings that lie to the south of West Boldon in a narrow strip of countryside that separates the Tyneside conurbation from the city of Sunderland. Appeal Decision APP/A4520/D/17/3185017 2 5. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out that inappropriate development within the Green Belt is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The Framework also establishes that new buildings in the Green Belt are inappropriate development unless, among other things, it involves the extension or alteration of a building. This is provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the original building. 6. Policy EA1 of the South Tyneside Core Strategy 2007 (Core Strategy) seeks to ensure that the openness of the Green Belt is preserved and enhanced. Whilst the Core Strategy pre-dates publication of the Framework, this policy is consistent with the policies in the Framework to protect Green Belt land and can still be given considerable weight. 7. In determining whether or not extensions will be disproportionate, the starting point is the size of the original building. Annex 2 of the Framework defines ‘original building’ as a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was built originally. The Council state that the original dwelling had a footprint of 73m2 and that previous extensions to it combined with the appeal proposal would amount to an additional 250m2. Based solely on this statistical measurement, the proposed extension, when combined with the earlier additions, would lead to a very significant increase in the size of the building both in terms of floorspace and volume. 8. The appellant calculates that the existing house has a volume of 1440m3 and that the proposed extensions would increase this to 1590m3. It is not clear from the appellant’s evidence whether the existing volume cited is that of the house as originally built or as it currently stands. From the submitted plans, and having regard to the size of the extension proposed in comparison to the existing plans, I consider that it is the latter. 9. Although, as the appellant suggests, an increase in volume of approximately 30% over the current volume of the building is not necessarily disproportionate, the test in Paragraph 89 of the Framework makes it clear that the baseline for this calculation is the original building. The planning history section of the Council officer’s report sets out that the property has been previously extended, most recently with a two storey side extension. I observed during my site visit that these extensions had been carried out. 10. The appellant has also drawn my attention to an appeal decision in a nearby authority which addresses the matter of large extensions to dwelling houses1. I do not have the full details of that scheme before me and therefore cannot be certain that the circumstances are similar to the appeal case. I have noted the points made by the Inspector in his decision, however, that proposal was not within a Green Belt and this is an important distinction between that appeal and the case before me. I consequently give only limited weigh to this point. 11. Assessing proportionality is primarily an objective test based on size. The appeal proposal would, in its own right, amount to a substantial increase in the size of the dwelling, extending across the full width of the previously extended ground floor with a projection of 5 metres. When taken cumulatively with the previous extensions, particularly the sizable, two storey, side extension, this 1 Appeal Reference: APP/V0728/D/16/3156994 Appeal Decision APP/A4520/D/17/3185017 3 would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 12. It would therefore be inappropriate development which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. The Framework requires that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. I therefore attach substantial weight to the harm arising from the inappropriate nature of the proposed development. The effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt 13. The Framework sets out that the fundamental aim of Green Belt Policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their permanence and openness. 14. The appeal building is part of a small group of dwellings that are washed over by the Green Belt. Situated just to the south of West Boldon, the group of buildings is surrounded by land in agricultural use. This is largely open in character with some groups of trees. Within and on the edges of the group of buildings there are also a substantial number of, large well established trees which create a verdant character. Although the appeal building is situated adjacent to other houses and stands in a substantial garden, it is nonetheless within the Green Belt. The proposed extension would reduce the openness of the Green Belt, albeit in a small way, by the introduction of new building works where previously there were none. 15. The proposed extension would not be prominent in views from the highway and footway of Lawn Drive. I saw when I visited the site that to the south of the appeal building there is a building plot which has had the foundations for a building laid. From the level of vegetation growth through the foundations, it was evident that no work had been carried out for some time. Nonetheless, were this building to be constructed it would further screen the proposed extension. Some limited views of the rear of the appeal building an be gained from Downhill Lane to the south west, although these are partly screened by mature trees near the rear boundary of the appeal site and the extension would be viewed on the context of the existing house and the neighbouring properties, limiting its visual effect on the openness of the Green Belt. 16. Taken together, the spatial and visual effect of the appeal proposal would be modest and, as such, would cause only a limited amount of harm to the openness of the Green Belt in this area. Other matters 17. I note that, taken in isolation, the Council have not raised any specific objections in relation to the design of the proposal or its effect on the street scene. Nor have objections been raised in respect of the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring properties or the effect on the highway. From what I have read and from what I saw during my site visit, I have no reason to come to a different conclusion with regard to these points. This weighs moderately in favour of the proposal. Very special circumstances 18. Paragraph 87 of the Framework states that inappropriate development in the Green Belt should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Appeal Decision APP/A4520/D/17/3185017 4 19. I have had to regard to the appellants points in respect of the layout of the existing house and the overall size of the house in relation to the plot that it stands in. However, Paragraph 89 of the Framework does not distinguish between extensions to buildings in different sizes of plots. To permit a significant increase in the size of buildings merely because they are sited on large plots would undermine the objective of safeguarding the openness of the Green Belt. I give no weight to this point. 20. The appellant suggests that there is a fallback position whereby extensions and outbuildings could be constructed at the property under the permitted development rights set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (the GPDO), which would have a greater effect on the openness of the Green Belt than the appeal proposal. The appellant states that a rear extension projecting between 3 and 8 metres in depth and up to 4 metres in height could be constructed together with a single storey curtilage building occupying up to 50% of the curtilage of the dwelling. A legitimate fallback position could be a material consideration, and amount to very special circumstances. 21. There is no evidence before me that would indicate that there are any restrictions that would prevent the appellant exercising his permitted development rights under Part 1, Class A or Class E of Schedule 2 of the GPDO. Although it is suggested that there is a planning permission in place under the GPDO for an 8 metre rear extension, this would only be the case if the Prior Approval procedure required by the GPDO had been completed. There is no evidence to suggest that this has occurred. Whilst I accept that no neighbouring occupiers have objected to the appeal proposal, it does not follow that these neighbours would not raise objections to a proposal for an 8 metre rear extension as they have not been given the opportunity to consider such a proposal. 22. In order for a fallback position to be a material consideration, there must be a greater than theoretical possibility that the development might take place2. There is no substantive evidence before me that it is the intention of the appellant to proceed with such extensions and curtilage buildings in the event that the appeal is unsuccessful. Whilst I accept that, theoretically, there is the ability to extend the dwelling and erect curtilage structures under permitted development rights, I do not have information on the nature and content of the alternative operations which is sufficiently particular to enable the necessary comparison with the appeal proposal to be made. Nor do I have any evidence as to the likelihood of the alternative operations being carried out. Consequently, I give only very limited weight to this. 23. The appellant also states that the extension is required to provide care for his elderly parents and as such there is a need for a downstairs bedroom and bathroom. I accept that the size of the extension would make available additional space to provide this accommodation. However, the submitted ground floor plans do not show these facilities being provided. I therefore attach very limited weight this point. 2 Raffaele Gambone v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government v Wolverhampton City Council [2014] EWHC 952 (Admin) Appeal Decision APP/A4520/D/17/3185017 5 24. I have found that the proposed development is inappropriate development which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Added to this is the limited amount of harm that would be caused to the openness of the Green Belt by the introduction of new built development. The Framework requires that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 25. I give moderate weight to the fact that the proposed development would not cause harm to the street scene, the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, or to highway safety. Limited weight can be given to the fact that it may be possible to extend the dwelling using permitted development rights and to the wishes of the appellant to be able to care for elderly family members in his own home. However, none of these factors, either individually or collectively, would clearly outweigh the substantial weight that is required to be given to the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness. These other considerations cannot, therefore, amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt. 26. I therefore conclude that the proposed development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that there are no very special circumstances that would warrant granting planning permission. The proposal would be contrary to the relevant requirements of Policy EA1 of the Core Strategy and the relevant policies in the Framework. Conclusion 27. Section 38(6) of the of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that the determination of planning applications and appeals must be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. I have found that the proposed development would not comply with the relevant policy in the development plan. 28. The Framework is a material consideration and the appellant suggests that the proposal should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The presumption in favour of sustainable development is set out in Paragraph 14 of the Framework and requires that development proposals that accord with the development plan should be approved without delay, and that where the development plan is silent, absent, or relevant policies are out of date, granting planning permission unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the Framework taken as a whole, or specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted. 29. Whilst the development plan predates the Framework, this does not automatically render it out of date. Core Strategy Policy EA1 still reflects the policies in the Framework with regard to protecting Green Belt land and can be given considerable weight. Footnote 9 to Paragraph 14 sets out that those policies in the Framework relating to land designated as Green Belt are policies that indicate that development should be restricted. 30. The proposed development does not comply with the relevant policies in the development plan or the Green Belt policies in the Framework and, consequently, the appeal must fail. Appeal Decision APP/A4520/D/17/3185017 6 31. For the above reasons and having regard to all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. John Dowsett INSPECTOR