Lower ground floor rear extension and new double garage to front garden

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 June 2018 by Clive Tokley MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/J0405/D/18/3199034 11 Upper Icknield Way, Aston Clinton, Aylesbury, HP22 5NF  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 A Maclean against the decision of Aylesbury Vale District Council.  The application ref 17/04440/APP, dated 6 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 5 January 2018.  The development proposed is a lower ground floor rear extension and new double garage to front garden. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: - a. Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework). b. The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt. c. The effect of the proposal on the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) d. If the proposal is inappropriate development whether there are any other considerations that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt due to inappropriateness and any other harm and whether very special circumstances exist to justify the granting of permission. Reasons Inappropriate development 3. The Framework indicates that within Green Belts inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The construction of new buildings is normally inappropriate development; however in Paragraph 89 the Framework identifies a range of developments which may not be inappropriate. These exceptions include a specific provision for the enlargement of a building. Appeal Decision APP/J0405/D/18/3199034 2 4. Bullet point 3 of Paragraph 89 indicates that 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, may not be inappropriate. “Original” is defined by the Framework as a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after that date, as it was originally built. 5. Policy RA 18 of the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan (LP) of January 2004 adopts a similar approach to the Framework. It indicates that extensions and alterations to dwellings within the Green Belt may be permitted if they are not out of proportion or out of character with the original building and do not materially reduce the openness of the Green Belt. The officer report indicates that as a “rule of thumb” extensions should not exceed 25% of “the dwelling” either in terms of floor space or volume. In this context the report does not explicitly refer to the “original” building; however the national and local policies all refer to the original building and I have no reason to conclude that the rule of thumb adopts a different reference point. 6. The original small bungalow has been the subject of extensions at the side and rear. An increase in roof height and dormer windows have enabled accommodation to be created at first floor level (planning application ref 02/03315/APP). The Council, indicates that these extensions have increased the size of the dwelling by about 52% adding about 180 cubic metres. The Council, indicates that the proposal would add another 168 cubic metres to the volume of the house with a further 100 cubic metres within the detached garage. It indicates that the proposal would result in an overall increase in volume as compared with the original dwelling of 130%. 7. The appellant draws attention to a void below the upper patio that could be enclosed to create a volume. But this space is of insufficient height to be used as habitable accommodation. The appellant indicates that the “footprint” of the development would not be increased; however the majority of the “footprint” of the proposed lower ground floor room is currently a two dimensional patio which has no meaningful volume. 8. The appellant points out that the 2002 proposal considerably exceeded the 25% norm expressed in the officer report at that time and questions the relevance of a statistical approach to determining whether a proposal is disproportionate. Whilst an assessment of “proportionality” is a matter of judgement both the preamble to Policy RA.18 and the text of bullet point 3 in Paragraph 89 of the Framework refer to “size of the original building”. This is a quantifiable factor upon which that judgement should be based. 9. The appellant produces no assessment of volume to challenge the Council’s figures and even if I made an allowance for the volume beneath the upper level patio the proposal would represent an increase in size as compared with the original building of in excess of 100%. Within an area of restraint on development I consider that an increase in size of this order would be disproportionate to the original dwelling. I therefore conclude that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Openness 10. The consideration of openness relates to the proposal in isolation and does not take account of the effect of any previous development on openness. The assessment of openness is therefore distinguished from “inappropriateness” Appeal Decision APP/J0405/D/18/3199034 3 which is concerned with the cumulative effect of additions as compared with original building. 11. Any above ground building would have some effect on openness. The proposal would add volume to the house at the rear and the detached garage would affect openness at the front. However taking account of the particular characteristics of the site as regards levels the proposal would have a limited effect on openness and I consider that it would not materially detract from the openness of the Green Belt. AONB countryside 12. The appeal property lies within a row of a dozen or so detached dwellings on the north side of Upper Ickneld Way. A similar number of houses lie to the west in the vicinity of Chiltern Way. Together these groups create a small developed enclave within open countryside that comprises agricultural land and woodland with a golf course to the south. The Upper Icknield Way dwellings are built at a lower level than the road. This difference in level combined with mature trees and well-established front hedges results in the houses to the east of No 11 being only glimpsed from the road; however the appeal dwelling and those to the west are more visible. The garage would be built a lower level than the road and its presence, together with the front wall and fence, would have an urbanising effect. However the character at the front of the dwelling would be similar to that of No 15 to the west. The rear lower ground floor extension would not be perceptible from outside the site and would have no effect on the countryside. I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s view that in this context the proposal would not detract from the scenic beauty of the AONB. Other matters 13. The appellant refers to the dwelling permitted at No 13 (in 2003) to replace a bungalow similar to the original appeal property. The presence that dwelling is a matter of fact and it appeared to me that there are other houses in the vicinity that are larger than the appeal dwelling. Green Belt balance 14. I have concluded that the proposal would be disproportionate in size to the original building. It would therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt which by definition would be harmful to the Green Belt. 15. I have concluded that the proposal would not detract from the openness of the Green Belt. It would have a neutral effect on the AONB countryside and no other harm would arise from the proposal. 16. The appellant draws attention to the absence of harm to the character and appearance of the area, the AONB and the living conditions of neighbouring residents. However the absence of harm is not a positive attribute that can be weighed in the balance in favour of inappropriate development. The permission for No 13 pre-dates the LP and the Framework and whilst I acknowledge its presence I consider that the historic grant of permission for that dwelling, and the presence of other large dwellings in the area, are not considerations that are sufficient clearly to outweigh the substantial weight which the Framework indicates should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. I therefore find that “very special circumstances” do not exist. Appeal Decision APP/J0405/D/18/3199034 4 17. In the absence of very special circumstances inappropriate development is not justified and the proposal would conflict with Policy RA 18 of the LP and with the Policy for Green Belts set out in the Framework. Conclusion 18. I have concluded that proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. I conclude that it would not unacceptably detract from openness and I have not identified any other harm. However in the absence of any considerations that would clearly outweigh the harm due to inappropriateness there is no justification for inappropriate development and, taking account of all matters, I have concluded that the appeal should not succeed. Clive Tokley INSPECTOR