Described on the planning application form as ‘alter existing rear conservatory and build first floor extension over

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 July 2018 by Michael Evans BA MA MPhil DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/U1240/D/18/3201680 Homeleigh, Forest Way Access to Hope Farm Oakleigh, Holtwood BH21 7DU  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 Kevin Lloyd against the decision of East Dorset District Council.  The application Ref 3/18/0211/HOU was refused by notice dated 28 March 2018.  The development proposed is described on the planning application form as ‘alter existing rear conservatory and build first floor extension over’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issue 2. The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposed development amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) and, if so, 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 Inappropriate development 3. The appeal concerns a detached dwelling located within the Green Belt where Government policy in the Framework identifies development that would not be inappropriate. 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. Inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances, which will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 4. The Council indicates that the property has been subject to significant previous enlargement with the footprint and volume of the original dwelling both practically doubling. The proposed extension would add about a further 100 cubic metres to the built volume. These figures are not disputed by the Appellant. Given the magnitude of such a cumulative increase in size I have no doubt that the scheme would result in disproportionate additions to the original Appeal Decision APP/U1240/D/18/3201680 2 dwelling. In consequence, it is concluded that the proposal would comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Openness of Green Belt 5. The extension would result in appreciable additional built volume above the existing conservatory. The width of the dwelling to the sides at first floor and roof level would significantly increase with additional bulk arising from the crown roof form. In consequence, despite the first floor extension not increasing the ground coverage of the dwelling, the openness of the Green Belt would be materially reduced. This would occur independently of views from outside the site. Nevertheless, I saw at my site visit that this adverse effect would be apparent from the adjacent lane to the west. 6. It is explained in the Framework that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence. As a result, significant harm would be caused to the openness of the Green Belt. Policy GB3 of the East Dorset Local Plan was adopted in 2002 and is not entirely consistent with Green Belt policy in the more recent Framework. Nevertheless, for the above reasons the extension would materially adversely increase the impact of the dwelling on the openness of the Green Belt through its bulk. It would therefore conflict with policy GB3, which, among other things, seeks to prevent such detrimental effects. Other considerations 7. The Appellant indicates that a first floor extension could be built under permitted development rights. I have considered the submitted drawings of this scheme and the side elevation showing the difference with the appeal proposal. However, the fall-back proposal would be smaller, with its depth being only 3m compared to the 3.45m of that now proposed and so have a lesser impact on the openness of the Green Belt. In consequence, there would be no benefit in allowing the appeal as there might be from seeking to prevent the construction of a development having a greater effect than the appeal scheme. This consideration therefore lends no weight in favour of the appeal. 8. The proposal would have no detrimental effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of nearby dwellings in terms of matters such as privacy. The design of the extension would be of a suitable standard. However, mere acceptability means that these matters do not weigh positively in favour of the appeal. Conclusion 9. Harm would be caused to the Green Belt due to inappropriate development and a loss of openness. In accordance with Paragraph 88 of the Framework substantial weight should be afforded to this harm. For the above reasons, other considerations do not weigh in favour of the proposal and cannot therefore clearly outweigh the harmful effect of the development. There can, in consequence, be no very special circumstances and the proposal would be contrary to Framework policies concerning the Green Belt. It is therefore determined that the appeal fails. M Evans INSPECTOR