Single storey oak framed orangery extension to rear

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 July 2018 by Andrew Dawe BSc(Hons) MSc MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 06 August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P1805/D/18/3202369 Piplars Cottage, Dusthouse Lane, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire B60 3AD  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 & Mrs A Willis against the decision of Bromsgrove District Council.  The application Ref 18/00062/FUL, dated 12 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 29 March 2018.  The development proposed is single storey oak framed orangery extension to rear. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. Since the submission of the appeal, the new revised National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018) (the Framework) has been published which replaces the first version published in 2012 (the 2012 Framework). The elements relating to development in Green Belts that are relevant to this appeal have remained largely unchanged and so do not alter the necessary considerations. Main Issues 3. The main issues are: i) whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt (the Green Belt) for the purposes of the Framework; ii) the effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; iii) whether any harm to the Green Belt 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 it. Reasons Whether inappropriate development 4. Policy BDP4 of the Bromsgrove District Plan (January 2017) (the District Plan) sets out that the development of new buildings in the Green Belt is considered inappropriate, except in specific circumstances. The circumstances are broadly consistent with those set out in the Framework which in paragraphs 145 and Appeal Decision APP/P1805/D/18/3202369 2 146 sets out the categories of development which may be regarded as not inappropriate, subject to certain conditions. The appeal development falls under the category of an extension of a building, or specifically in relation to policy BDP4, to an existing residential dwelling. In considering whether or not it would be inappropriate development, a determination has to be made as to whether or not it would result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. 5. In this respect, Policy BDP4 interprets disproportionate additions as being extensions that would represent more than a maximum 40% increase of the original dwelling or more than a maximum total floor space of 140 square metres. In this respect, it is not disputed by the appellants, and I have no basis to consider otherwise, that the property has already been extended beyond the 40% threshold, albeit that they highlight that previous extensions were completed before the current Green Belt policies were in place. Nevertheless, and crucially, I have received no substantive evidence to indicate that those extensions were built before 1 July 1948 and should therefore be considered part of the original dwelling for planning purposes. 6. The appellant highlights that the proposal would not dominate the appearance of the rear of the property, would not be of an excessive size for the plot, would not be overly prominent, would not be readily seen and would extend only a small amount beyond the existing rear elevation of the house. Whilst that would be the case, the key factor concerning harm due to inappropriateness for the purposes of the Framework is proportionality and size rather than visual impact. Importantly in this respect, cumulatively with those other existing extensions, the proposal would further add to the already significantly extended dwelling, which, under the current development plan policy would be considered disproportionate. 7. Whilst the proposed extension itself would only represent a small percentage increase in size of the current dwelling, this is not a factor which carries any weight in the context of the significant cumulative additions to the original property. Furthermore, whilst I note that existing extensions to the dwelling have been granted planning permission in the past, I have determined this appeal on its merits, and in any case I do not have the full details or circumstances relating to those permissions. 8. I have determined the appeal proposal on its own merits. However, I have had regard to two other appeal decisions referred to by the appellants although I have not received the full details of those cases to enable a proper comparison with the current appeal scheme. The first, Ref APP/R3650/D/11/2152504, also pre-dates the 2012 Framework and I have not received details of the full policy context and circumstances relating to that case. 9. In relation to the latter, Ref APP/K0425/D/13/2200617, this similarly concerned a relatively small extension in a discrete position. However, my colleague specifically took account of the aspect of the development plan policy stating that the floorspace threshold may be exceeded where the property is within a ribbon development, noting that the dwelling concerned was in a row of dwellings extending for some distance, some of which were fairly substantial. The 2012 Framework was referred to as not having any specific thresholds, as remains the case with the new version. However, the circumstances of that case were different whereby my colleague highlighted that the Core Strategy Appeal Decision APP/P1805/D/18/3202369 3 policy, unlike the older saved Local Plan policy which included a 50% floorspace threshold, did not have any threshold. The same is not the case in relation to the fairly recently adopted District Plan relating to this current appeal, adopted since the publication of the 2012 Framework. That policy is broadly consistent with the Framework, as it was in relation to the previous version. 10. For the above reasons, I conclude on this issue that, for the purposes of the Framework, the proposed development must be regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt which would by definition be harmful to the Green Belt, to which substantial weight should be given. Openness of the Green Belt 11. Openness, as highlighted in the Framework, is an essential characteristic of Green Belts to which the Government attaches great importance and which is a separate issue from the character and appearance of an area. 12. The proposed extension would be fairly modest in size and discretely positioned to the rear of the dwelling out of sight from any public vantage points, and occupying only a relatively small part of the existing garden area. In that context, the proposed extension in itself would not represent significant encroachment into the Green Belt. I have therefore applied little weight to harm through loss of openness. Other considerations 13. The appellants claim that the small scale and discreteness of the proposal should be considered as a very special circumstance in its favour. However, I consider these matters to relate to openness which I have addressed above under the second main issue. In light of my findings in relation to that issue, I consider this to be a neutral factor in my overall considerations relating to this appeal. 14. The appellants also make reference to the sustainable form of development in terms of the materials and construction methods proposed. However, that would only be of benefit were other factors relating to the principle of the development considered to be acceptable. In any case, any such benefit would be fairly small due to the relatively modest size of the proposal. I have therefore afforded little weight to this factor. 15. For the above reasons, these other considerations would not hold sufficient weight to outweigh the harm that I have found would be caused to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness. Furthermore, I have not received substantive evidence of any other considerations which would do so. The very special circumstances needed to justify the development do not therefore arise. Conclusion 16. I have afforded little weight to harm through loss of openness to the Green Belt. However, this does not deflect from the harm that I have found would be caused to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness to which substantial weight should be given. Furthermore, I have found that no special circumstances arise that would justify the development. Appeal Decision APP/P1805/D/18/3202369 4 17. Therefore, for the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Andrew Dawe INSPECTOR