Rear and side extension and raised patio

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 October 2018 by J L Cheesley BA(Hons) DIPTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 08 October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/K2230/D/18/3207317 Hartshill Bungalow, Thong Lane, Shorne, Gravesend, Kent DA12 4AD  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 S Gill against the decision of Gravesham Borough Council.  The application Ref 20180461 was refused by notice dated 22 June 2018.  The development proposed is a rear and side extension and raised patio. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issues 2. I consider the main issues to be: whether the development amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and if so, whether the harm 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 the development; and the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling. Reasons 3. A proposal should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this particular instance for residential extensions, saved Policy C13 in the Gravesham Local Plan First Review (1994), limits extensions to dwellings in the countryside to one third of the external gross floor area of the original dwelling, unless the increased floorspace has no overall effect on the existing bulk and appearance of the building. In addition, it requires the appearance, massing, scale, form and materials of any extension to be appropriate to the existing dwelling and the Green Belt setting. 4. Policy CS02 in the Gravesham Local Plan Core Strategy (2014) is concerned with the scale and distribution of development in line with sustainable development principles and requires development in the Green Belt to be compatible with national policy. 5. Local Plan Core Strategy Policy CS19 seeks to ensure visually attractive design that conserves and enhances the character of the local built environment. Appeal Decision APP/K2230/D/18/3207317 2 6. Since the Council made its decision on this proposal, national policy in the National Planning Policy Framework (2012) has been replaced by a revised National Planning Policy Framework (2018). At paragraph 213 it states that due weight should be given to existing policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. In this particular instance, I consider that Policies referred to above are broadly consistent with the Framework where it seeks to protect the Green Belt and ensure good design. Green Belt 7. The National Planning Policy Framework explains that the fundamental aim of Green Belt Policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. 8. The Framework explains that the extension or alteration of a building is not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The Framework does not define how disproportionate additions should be calculated. 9. The development has been completed and comprises a single-storey flat roof rear and side extension to an existing small bungalow. It is not in dispute that the development exceeds the limits in saved Policy C13. 10. From my observations, due to the scale, bulk and design of the extension, I consider that the development is excessive in relation to the original dwelling. The footprint of the extension is larger than the original dwelling. As such it constitutes a disproportionate addition to the original dwelling. Therefore, I consider the development is inappropriate development, which the Framework states is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. 11. Added to the harm of being inappropriate development is the impact that the development has in diminishing the sense of openness of this part of the Green Belt. 12. The appeal property is situated in a rural area where there is sporadic development in a countryside setting. Whilst the appeal property is screened to a considerable extent, the development adds further significant domestic built form to this setting, which I consider diminishes the sense of openness of this part of the Green Belt. Character and Appearance 13. From my observations, due to the scale, bulk and design of the extension, I consider that it overwhelms the character and appearance of the host dwelling. It appears as an incongruous addition not in keeping with the form and proportions of the original dwelling. This is to the detriment of the character and appearance of the dwelling, contrary to Local Plan Core Strategy Policy CS19. Other Considerations 14. I understand that the appellant required the additional living accommodation for a large family. Whilst I sympathise with this situation, this could be argued in many circumstances within the Green Belt. Therefore, I have attributed limited weight to this matter in my determination of this appeal. Appeal Decision APP/K2230/D/18/3207317 3 15. I note that the appellant would seek to extend the property in accordance with prior approval/permitted development rights. This fallback position is a material planning consideration. Nevertheless, it would not result in the scale of development as currently constructed, which would alleviate to some extent the harm the existing extension causes to the character and appearance of the original dwelling and to the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore, I have attributed limited weight to this matter in my determination of this appeal. 16. I have been referred to examples of appeal decisions for other extensions to dwellings in the Green Belt: Refs APP/K2230/D/17/3171881 and APP/K2230/D/10/2136299. I have read these decisions, which are not directly comparable to the development at the appeal site, particularly in terms of the percentage of increased floor area. Therefore, I have attributed limited weight to these examples in my determination of this appeal and I have determined the development before me on its individual merits. Conclusion 17. In reaching my conclusion, I have had regard to all matters raised. It is necessary to determine whether there are other considerations which clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm, hereby justifying the development on the basis of very special circumstances. For the reasons stated above, in my opinion the considerations advanced in support of the development do not clearly outweigh the harm it causes to the Green Belt and to the character and appearance of the original dwelling. In conclusion, I am of the opinion that there are no material factors that would amount to the very special circumstances needed to clearly outweigh the presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Thus, the development is contrary to policy outlined in the Framework; saved Policy C13 in the Gravesham Local Plan First Review (1994); and Local Plan Core Strategy Policy CS19. 18. It must be acknowledged that at the heart of the National Planning Policy Framework is the presumption in favour of sustainable development. It sets out the three dimensions that need to be considered, and that the roles should not be taken in isolation. 19. Turning to the economic role, some very small benefit may have accrued in relation to the construction of the extension. In terms of the social role, the development provides additional living accommodation, but not within a high quality built environment. I now turn to the environmental role. For the reasons stated above, I have found that the development causes harm to the Green Belt and to the character and appearance of the original dwelling. This harm is so significant in terms of both the social and environmental roles that taking the three dimensions together, the development does not constitute sustainable development. Thus, the development is contrary to Local Plan Core Strategy Policy CS02 in this respect. J L Cheesley INSPECTOR