Full planning application for the extension to a single dwellinghouse

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 November 2018 by Steven Rennie BA (Hons) BSc (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18th December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/J0405/D/18/3207396 New House, Chivery, Aston Clinton, Buckinghamshire HP23 6LE  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 and Mrs Bird against the decision of Aylesbury Vale District Council.  The application Ref 18/01697/APP, dated 11 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 5 July 2018.  The development proposed is described as ‘A full planning application for the extension to a single dwellinghouse’. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published on the 24 July 2018 and replaces the first Framework published in March 2012. References to the Framework in this decision therefore reflect the revised Framework. Main Issues 3. The main issues:  Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies.  The effect 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. Reasons Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt 4. The site includes a two storey house with attached garage, set in a large plot within both the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and also the Green Belt. Appeal Decision APP/J0405/D/18/3207396 2 5. There is already planning permission for redevelopment of the house (reference 17/01406/APP), however this is a revised proposal for further extension at the side to provide a garage and bedroom above. 6. Paragraph 145 of the Framework states that a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. It goes on to set out a limited number of 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 building. 7. Policy RA.6 of the Aylesbury Vale District Local Plan January 2004 (LP) states that there is a general presumption against new buildings in the Green Belt. Furthermore, policy RA.18 requires that extensions and alterations to dwellings in the Green Belt should not be out of proportion or character with the original building and should not materially reduce the openness of the Green Belt. I regard these policies as being generally consistent with the Framework. 8. As set out by the appellant, the extant permission would allow for an extended and altered dwelling, with a volume of 1281m3 compared to the existing house being 1116m3. However, the additional volume of the revised proposal would result in a house of 1564m3. This is a substantial increase over that already approved. 9. I note that the Council has expressed that normally they consider 25-30% as an increase in floor space or volume as proportionate. There is, however, no mention of these figures in the adopted policy and so this is not a defined threshold when considering such matters. However, the proposed extension would result in an increase in footprint and volume of approximately 35% and 40% respectively. This additional size would be significant and would be clearly visible as a much larger house than existing. As such, this level of extension to the existing house would be a disproportionate increase in size. 10. On this basis, the proposed extensions and alterations would be inappropriate development which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Furthermore, the development as proposed would also fail to accord with contrary to policies RA.6 and RA.18 of the Local Plan, which, amongst other things, seek to strictly control development within the Green Belt. Effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt 11. Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. The proposed extended and altered house would be relatively compact and centrally positioned within a large plot, with the side garage and first floor addition visually matching the house as has been permitted. However, the extensions would result in a larger house covering areas of the plot where there is no building currently. As such the development would diminish the openness of this part of the Green Belt, although in isolation the loss of openness would be limited. 12. The fact that the plot is spacious in itself does not significantly weigh against the loss of openness as a result of the proposed extension. Furthermore, whilst quite well screened from views from outside of the site, there would still be some views of the larger house proposed and therefore its effect on openness would be evident. Appeal Decision APP/J0405/D/18/3207396 3 13. The proposed development would therefore also conflict with national and local policy to protect the openness of the Green Belt. Other Considerations 14. My attention has been drawn to other appeal decisions. However, those appeals relate to a different proposal and circumstances, where a greater percentage increase in size has been regarded as acceptable. I therefore give this appeal decision limited weight in respect of this proposal, which I have assessed on its own merits. 15. There has been an issued Certificate of Lawfulness (ref: 18/00281/ACL) for a new garage within the site. The appellant states that this is a valid fallback position as if permission was not given for the proposal subject to this appeal, which includes garaging, then they would look to build the detached garage instead. The detached garage is stated by the appellant to have a footprint of 132m2 and a volume of 397m3. This is a material consideration and the detached garage would be greater in size than the volume increase between the extant permission and the proposed development. 16. However, I do not have full details of this Certificate of Lawfulness in front of me. An important aspect would be where this garage would be within the site. From the information before me, it may be possible to build this garage under an extant Certificate of Lawfulness and also build the attached garage with bedroom above as proposed with the appeal scheme. This would likely have a significantly greater effect on Green Belt openness. As such, I give this matter limited weight as an argument to support the proposed extensions to the house. 17. Furthermore, I have not got sufficient details of any other consent, but from the information I do have it seems unlikely they would constitute a likely implemented fallback position if the proposal is not allowed. Green Belt Balance 18. Whilst I acknowledge that the proposal would not have an adverse effect on some of the Green Belt objectives set out in the Framework, such as preventing urban sprawl for example, I have found that the proposed development would be inappropriate development which the Framework state is, by definition, harmful the Green Belt. In addition, there would be limited harm arising from a minimal loss of openness. This is harm which the Framework advises should be given substantial weight when assessing proposals. 19. There are no other considerations which clearly outweigh the harm I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal do not exist. Conclusion 20. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Steven Rennie Appeal Decision APP/J0405/D/18/3207396 4 INSPECTOR