First floor extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 February 2018 by Helen Hockenhull BA(Hons) B.Pl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/T4210/D/18/3193842 Bungalow 3, Watling Street, Affetside, Bury BL8 3QP  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 Graham Lowe against the decision of Bury Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref 61922, dated 12 September 2017, was refused by notice dated 26 October 2017.  The development proposed is a first floor extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are:  whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and development plan policy;  the effect of the development on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt;  the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling;  if the proposal is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Reasons 3. The appeal property forms a detached bungalow located on the outskirts of the village of Affetside. It is accessed via a track from Watling Street which also forms a public right of way. The dwelling has been extended to the rear creating an ‘L’ shaped property. It is proposed to provide a first floor extension to create a living room with balcony feature, taking advantage of the countryside views. The site is located within the Green Belt. Appeal Decision APP/T4210/D/18/3193842 2 Inappropriate development 4. Paragraph 89 of the Framework regards the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt as inappropriate development. The Framework outlines a number of exceptions to this. The most relevant to this case is the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling. 5. Saved Policy OL/2 of the Bury Unitary Development Plan (UDP) 1997 concerns new buildings in the Green Belt. This policy pre dates the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), and whilst it generally reflects current national policy it is inconsistent with it in a number of respects. I therefore give greater weight to the Framework. 6. The Framework does not define what constitutes a disproportionate addition. However the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 8, New Buildings and Associated Development in the Green Belt 2007 (SPG8) provides guidance on this matter. It advises that the Council may allow extensions up to a third of the volume of the original dwelling. This threshold is reiterated in the Council’s Supplementary Guidance Note 6 updated in 2010 which relates to Alterations and Extensions to Residential Properties. 7. I note from the Council’s evidence that the property was granted planning permission for a side and rear extension in 2004. The parties agree that the existing and proposed extensions would exceed the 30% increase in volume referred to in SPG Notes 6 and 8. The appeal proposal would therefore result in a disproportionate addition to the property. It would not comply with any of the exceptions in paragraph 89 of the Framework and would form inappropriate development in the Green Belt. 8. The Council in their reason for refusal has stated that the proposal by virtue of its scale and design would form inappropriate development in the Green Belt. However having regard to national policy, whilst the scale of the development is a determining factor, the issue of design and the effect on the character of the dwelling is not relevant to the consideration of inappropriateness. It does however form a material consideration which I shall turn to later in my decision. Openness 9. A fundamental aim of Green Belt policy, as set out in paragraph 79 of the Framework is to keep land permanently open; the essential characteristic of Green Belts is their openness and permanence. The appeal scheme proposes a first floor extension to the bungalow, raising the roof height by approximately 2 metres and creating a two storey entrance porch and glazed screen balcony. 10. I noted on site visit that the appeal property is visible from the east from Watling Street. As a result of the existing height of the dwelling and the contours of the land, only the upper part of the property can be seen resulting in a relatively unobtrusive development. The proposal to raise the height of the building would mean that the dwelling would be more dominant in the landscape. I consider that as a result the development would cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt would fail to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. Appeal Decision APP/T4210/D/18/3193842 3 11. I accept that the property is difficult to see from other viewpoints. However the absence of visual intrusion does not in itself mean that there is no impact on the openness of the Green Belt. Character and appearance 12. As I have mentioned above, the Council has raised concern with regard to the design of the proposal and the impact on the character of the property. The existing bungalow is of a simple design constructed in stone and render with a slate roof. The proposed scheme keeps the increase in height of the roof to a minimum and provides roof lights to the front and rear roof planes. The submitted plans also include a proposed balcony with glazed screen which would project forward of the front elevation of the dwelling in line with the two storey porch. I consider that this feature as designed would adversely affect the simple rural character of the existing dwelling. In this regard the appeal proposal would be contrary to Saved Policy H2/3 of the UDP which aims to ensure that extensions and alterations are of a high standard of design sympathetic to the original building and the surrounding area. Other considerations 13. I acknowledge that the proposed extension would be constructed in matching materials to the existing bungalow and would reuse the existing roof slates. I also note that there would be no amenity issues such as overlooking or loss of privacy affecting the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring dwellings. These factors attract limited weight in favour of the appeal. Conclusion 14. The Framework indicates that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. I consider that the harm by reason of inappropriateness, the adverse effect on the openness of the Green Belt and the harm to the character of the dwelling are clearly not outweighed by the other considerations outlined above. Very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not therefore exist. 15. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I dismiss this appeal. Helen Hockenhull INSPECTOR