2 storey side extension, alteration to existing porch, alterations to existing rear single storey extension including new pitched roof

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 August 2018 by J Bell-Williamson MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17th September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/K2230/D/18/3205067 3 Longtens Cottages, Green Farm Lane, Shorne, Gravesend DA12 3HW  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 Shan Fenning against the decision of Gravesham Borough Council.  The application Ref 20171362, dated 16 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 27 April 2018.  The development proposed is 2 storey side extension, alteration to existing porch, alterations to existing rear single storey extension including new pitched roof. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on 24 July 2018. The content of the revised Framework has been considered but in light of the facts in this case it does not alter my conclusion. Main Issues 3. As the appeal site is within the Green Belt the main issues are:  whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the Framework and development plan policy;  the effect on the openness of the Green Belt and on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area; and  if the proposal would be inappropriate development, whether the 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 4. The appeal property is a two storey semi-detached dwelling in a short row of similar cottages in a rural area. This Green Belt location is defined as countryside with open fields surrounding the small group of dwellings. The appeal site is also within the Higham Arable Farmlands landscape character area. Appeal Decision APP/K2230/D/18/3205067 2 Whether the proposal is inappropriate development 5. The Framework makes clear at paragraph 145 (formerly paragraph 89) that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, with a small number of exceptions. One of these 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 building. 6. The Council refers to Policy CS02 of its Local Plan Core Strategy, which says that development outside rural settlements, as in this case, will be supported where it is compatible with national policies for protecting the Green Belt and other policies in the Core Strategy. It also refers to Policy C13 of its Local Plan First Review, which concerns extensions to dwellings in the countryside. This policy includes criterion (ii) that places an overall limit of one third of the gross floor area of the original dwelling prior to any later extension or alteration, unless the increased floorspace has no overall effect on the existing bulk and appearance of the dwelling; and criterion (vi) that the appearance, massing, scale form and materials of any extension shall be appropriate to the existing dwelling and the Green Belt setting. 7. Despite the fact that both these policies pre-date the latest version of the Framework, they are broadly consistent with it, although national guidance does not quantify any increase in size that should be taken into account in considering development proposals. Nonetheless, both policies are relevant in the context of this appeal and, therefore, I give them weight and have taken account of them as well as the Framework. 8. The Council indicates that the floor area of the original building is just under 80m2, while the area of previous and the proposed extensions is just over 91m2. This amounts to a nearly 115% increase above the size of the original building. Therefore, by this measure, the proposal fails to accord with the quantitative requirement of Policy C13(ii). The appellant states that it is unclear when the existing rear extension was built, but excluding this floorspace from the calculations would still result in failure to comply with the relevant policy requirement. 9. While an increase in floor area of this extent is a substantive change by this measure, this should not be the sole basis for considering whether such a change is disproportionate compared to the original building. It is important, therefore, to consider this issue in terms of the scale, bulk, massing and built form that would result from the changes sought, particularly as this is a requirement of Policy C13(ii) and (vi). 10. The small infill to the rear extension, change of its roof profile and extension of the front porch would all represent limited changes to the original building. The side extension would, however, be a more substantive change. Despite the setback from the front, the combined width, height and depth of the extension would add considerable bulk and mass to the relatively modest scale of the existing dwelling. This would materially alter the proportions of the host dwelling. 11. Overall, therefore, the proposed extensions would result in a material increase in the floor area of the dwelling and in quantitative terms would fail to comply with Policy C13(ii). Furthermore, for the above reasons the side extension Appeal Decision APP/K2230/D/18/3205067 3 would add considerable bulk and mass, materially altering the original built form. Consequently, I find that the proposal would result in a disproportionate addition in the form of the side extension over and above the size of the original building. Therefore, I conclude in accordance with the provisions of the Framework and development plan policy that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Effect on openness and character and appearance 12. The Framework states that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. I have found above that the proposed side extension would add considerable bulk and mass across two storeys. As such, the proposal involves substantive additional development in a position where previously none existed. Consequently, there would be a reduction to the openness of the Green Belt in this location, which would be visually prominent due to the highly open location, and weight must be attached to this harm. 13. Given the relatively modest proportions of the host dwelling the scale of the side extension, particularly its width, would have an unbalancing effect on the existing built form and would represent a form of overdevelopment. The short row of cottages are largely of a highly uniform design and appearance as most are unaltered. No 4 adjoining the appeal property does have a side extension, but this does not appear to be the same width as the appeal proposal. The harmful effects would be readily apparent due to the openness of the surrounding area, although there would be no such effects from the other limited changes proposed. 14. Therefore, for these reasons, I conclude that the proposed side extension would have an unacceptably harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and surrounding area. Consequently, it is contrary to Policy CS19 of the Core Strategy, concerning the quality of development and design principles. This policy is consistent with the Framework. While the appellant contends that this policy does not apply to extensions, I can see no reason that it should not be relevant to such forms of development. Other considerations 15.The appellant contends that the proposed extensions are intended to create additional living space and that the development will take place on previously- developed, underused land. Concern is also expressed about the length of time taken to reach a decision on the planning application. 16.While I have carefully considered these matters, I given them limited weight and they are not a sufficient reason to outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and conflict with national and local policies that I have found would result from the proposal. Overall conclusion 17.The proposed development would represent inappropriate development, which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It would also harm the openness of the Green Belt in this location; the Framework requires that substantial weight must be attributed to any harm to the Green Belt (paragraph 144). Appeal Decision APP/K2230/D/18/3205067 4 Additionally, I have found above that there would be harm to the character and appearance of the appeal property and surrounding area. 18.There are no other considerations raised in support of the development that would outweigh the harm identified to the Green Belt. Therefore, very special circumstances do not exist and permission should not be granted as the proposal is contrary to guidance in the Framework and to the development plan policies referred to. Accordingly, for the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, it is concluded that the appeal should be dismissed. J Bell-Williamson INSPECTOR