Part two and part single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 June 2018 by Beverley Doward BSc BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26 June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/D/18/3202496 Brook Cottage, Chapel Lane, Mere, WA16 6PP  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 J Hassett against the decision of Cheshire East Council.  The application Ref 18/0120M, dated 9 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 4 April 2018.  The development proposed is part two and part single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are:  whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies;  the effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and  whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal. Reasons Whether inappropriate development 3. The appeal site is a semi-detached dwelling in the Green Belt. The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It indicates, at paragraph 89, that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt unless they fall within certain specified exceptions. One of these exceptions relates to 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. The Framework does not provide any guidance on the meaning of ‘disproportionate’ within the context of paragraph 89 and, therefore, it is a matter of judgement for the decision maker. Appeal Decision APP/R0660/D/18/3202496 2 4. Policy PG 3 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2010-2030 (adopted July 2017) (CELPS) replicates national policy and it too does not provide any guidance on the meaning of ‘disproportionate’. 5. Policy GC12 of the Macclesfield Borough Local Plan January 2004 (MBLP) indicates that alterations and extensions in the countryside may be granted for up to 30% of the original floor space providing the scale and appearance of the house is not significantly altered. The policy pre-dates the Framework and relates to the countryside in general. However, its supporting text refers to PPG2 Green Belts and the exception to inappropriate development for extensions or alterations of dwellings that would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The supporting text also indicates that the floor space limitation set out in the policy provides an indication of what would be considered a ‘disproportionate addition’. The Framework has replaced PPG2. However, this exception criterion is very similar and accordingly, I consider that it is relevant to this appeal in terms of assessing proportionality. 6. There is no dispute between the parties that the original property has previously been extended. The Council indicates that a previous planning application for the extension of the property confirmed that the dwelling had already been extended by 60% above the original floorspace. The appellants do not dispute this. Accordingly, I see no reason to take a different view. 7. The appeal proposal seeks to demolish the existing rear orangery and replace it by a part single/part two storey rear extension, the ground floor of which would extend over almost the existing orangery. The additional floorspace proposed therefore would amount to almost the first floor addition. I have not been provided with a figure as to the resultant extent of this increase. However, given that the floorspace of the original dwelling has already been extended by 60% and the proposed development would further increase it, the appeal proposal would undoubtedly result in the original floorspace of the dwelling exceeding that supported by policy GC12 of the MBLP by a considerable margin. 8. The appellants refer to that part of policy GC12 of the MBLP which indicates that exceptions to the policy may be allowed in certain circumstances. These include, amongst other things, where the proposal lies in a group of houses or ribbon of development and the extension would not be prominent and/or where the extension is to provide basic amenities or an additional bedroom or living room in a small cottage. However, no such exceptions exist within Policy PG 3 of the CELPS which is specific to the Green Belt nor are there any such exceptions within the Framework. There is therefore a degree of inconsistency between this part of policy GC12 of the MBLP and the Framework. 9. In any event, whilst I note the Oxford English Dictionary definition of a ‘group’ referred to by the appellants and I acknowledge that there are other dwellings within the vicinity of the appeal site, I saw from my site visit that the large detached dwelling to the south and the dwelling on the other side of Chapel Lane to the north-east are set some distance away from the appeal dwelling and separate from it. I am not persuaded that a pair of semi-detached dwellings alone can be considered to constitute a group. Accordingly, I consider that whilst the extension would not be prominent the proposal does not lie in a group of houses or a ribbon of development. Furthermore, the Appeal Decision APP/R0660/D/18/3202496 3 scale of the existing dwelling is such that in my view it cannot be considered as a ‘small cottage’. Therefore, the proposal would not fall to be considered as one of the exceptions referred to in policy GC12 of the MBLP. 10. Having regard to all of the above therefore, the proposal would, taken together with previous extensions result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. This would be contrary to policy PG 3 of the CELPS and the Framework. It would also fail to comply with policy GC12 of the MBLP. Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal proposal would be inappropriate development which is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. Openness of the Green Belt 11. The Framework, at paragraph 79, indicates that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt and has both a visual and spatial dimension. The appeal site is substantially enclosed and the proposed development would not be visible from the public realm. Accordingly, although the proposal would add to the amount of built development on the site the loss of openness in this particular case would be slight. Other considerations 12. The appellants state that the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the countryside and the Council does not suggest any such harm. However, a lack of harm in this respect does not serve to weigh in favour of the proposal. I note that the appellants indicate that the proposal would provide an extended third bedroom for their adolescent child and I attach moderate weight to this matter. Conclusion 13. To conclude therefore, the appeal proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt which would, by definition, be harmful to the Green Belt. It would also cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The Framework is clear that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt and that ‘very special circumstances’ 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. I have not found any other material harm. The effect on the character and appearance of the countryside is a neutral consideration and the moderate weight I attach to the creation of a larger bedroom would not clearly outweigh the substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm by reason of inappropriate development. Therefore, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. 14. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal should be dismissed. Beverley Doward INSPECTOR