Rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 August 2018 by K Ford MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2nd October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/R1845/D/18/3203339 Clattercut House, Clattercut Lane, Rushock, Droitwich WR9 0NN  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 Ms Lara Darby against the decision of Wyre Forest District Council.  The application Ref 18/0197/FULL, dated 6 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 8 May 2018.  The development proposed is a rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Application for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Ms Lara Darby against Wyre Forest District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision. Preliminary Matter 3. The revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published on 24 July 2018, replacing the version published in March 2012. Local development plan policies that pre-date this publication should be given due weight according to the degree of consistency with the NPPF. The main parties have been provided with an opportunity to comment on the revised NPPF and its relevance to the determination of the appeal. References to the NPPF in this decision consequently reflect the revised NPPF. Main Issues 4. The main issues are:  Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the NPPF and any other relevant development plan policies.  The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt.  Would the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, be clearly outweighed by other considerations. If so, would this amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal. Appeal Decision APP/R1845/D/18/3203339 2 Reasons Inappropriate Development 5. The appeal dwelling is located in the Green Belt. Paragraph 143 of the NPPF states inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 145 of the NPPF states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate. It sets out some exceptions, one of which 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. Policy SAL.UP1 of the Wyre Forest Site Allocations and Policies Local Plan is consistent with the provisions of the NPPF in this regard. 6. The Council say that the property has been subject to previous extensions and that it has at least doubled in size since 1970, the date at which the earliest plans are available. This has not been disputed by the appellant. The policies in the NPPF and development plan are explicit that the test is one of proportionality. A further extension to the property would be disproportionate to the size of the original dwelling. The proposal would be inappropriate development which the NPPF advises is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and to which substantial weight must be given. Openness 7. Paragraph 133 of the NPPF says ‘the fundamental aim of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belt are their openness and their permanence’. Given my findings that the extension is a disproportionate addition above the original dwelling house, there would be a loss of openness from the extension that would be significant in Green Belt terms. The development consequently conflicts with paragraph 133 of the NPPF in this regard. Other Considerations 8. The appellant contends that an extant Notification of Prior Approval1 for a rear extension in a different location to the proposal represents the ‘very special circumstances’ required to justify the proposal. In order to establish the validity of the fallback position it is necessary to first establish whether there is a greater than theoretical possibility that the fallback may take place. 9. The planning application and prior approval demonstrate that there is a strong desire by the appellant to develop an extension to the rear of the property. There is nothing to indicate that the fallback could not be implemented. The development of the fallback is therefore a realistic possibility. 10. Having established that the fallback position is capable of implementation it is necessary for me to consider what weight should be attached to it. The fallback position would only be marginally larger in floorspace than the proposal. It would be located off the dining room as so it would project out further with a corresponding greater effect on the openness of the Green Belt. 1 Council Planning Ref: 18/2017/PNH Appeal Decision APP/R1845/D/18/3203339 3 11. However, the fallback position would create a contrived awkward internal layout at odds with the open plan living space of the proposal and therefore contrary to what appear to be the appellant’s intentions. It would also create an awkward and incongruous looking extension. Consequently, whilst there is a theoretical possibility that the fallback position could be implemented I am of the opinion that the likelihood of it being implemented is low. As a consequence, I give the fallback position limited weight. The willingness of the appellant to agree to the removal of permitted development rights preventing the construction of extensions without planning permission does not alter my view and I give this neutral weight. 12. My attention has been drawn to a decision2 where the fallback position amounted to very special circumstances necessary to justify development. I have taken into account the fallback position represented by the notification of prior approval but for the reasons identified I have given it little weight. Conclusion 13. The proposal is inappropriate development which by definition is harmful to the Green Belt. It would also impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The NPPF requires that substantial weight be attached to harm caused by inappropriateness and loss of openness. For the appeal to succeed the combined weight of other considerations must clearly outweigh the harm caused. The other considerations do not clearly outweigh the totality of the harm that would be caused and so very special circumstances to justify the development do not exist. For the reasons identified I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. K Ford INSPECTOR 2 Mansell v Tonbridhe and Malling Borough Council (2017)EWCACIC 1314