Ground floor extension resulting in a 10% increase in the existing footprint

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 October 2018 by Les Greenwood MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 26th October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/18/3207716 Good Shelter, Viewlands Avenue, Westerham TN16 2JE  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 Mrs Zoe Horton against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley.  The application Ref DC/18/01954/FULL6 was refused by notice dated 6 July 2018.  The development proposed is a ground floor extension resulting in a 10% increase in the existing footprint. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a ground floor extension resulting in a 10% increase in the existing footprint in accordance with the terms of the application Ref DC/18/01954/FULL6, dated 27 April 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 2235/100, 2235/101C and 2235/300A. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Preliminary matters 2. A revised plan (No 2235/101C) was submitted during the application process and was considered by the Council. I have considered the proposal on that basis. 3. A revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework was published shortly after this appeal was submitted. Having considered the role and content of the Framework in relation to this case, I see no need to consult about this change in national policy. Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3207716 2 Main issues 4. The main issues are: (i) whether the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt; and (ii) its effect on the appearance and open rural character of the locality and the Green Belt. Reasons Inappropriate development in the Green Belt? 5. Good Shelter is a detached dormer bungalow sitting within a spacious enclave of detached houses and bungalows in the countryside and the Metropolitan Green Belt. The proposal is to build a tall single storey extension to the side, linking to a garage building at the back. The plans also show a small rear extension, infilling an existing patio. This is a reduced scheme following a dismissed appeal (Ref APP/G5180/D/17/3192482). 6. Paragraph 143 of the National Planning Policy Framework advises that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 145 explains that construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt, except for listed exceptions. These include extensions and alterations to buildings provided that these do not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 7. Along similar lines, Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Policy G1 allows for the limited extension of existing dwellings in the Green Belt. UDP Policy G4 provides further detail, stating that extensions to dwellings in the Green Belt will only be permitted if, amongst other things the net increase in the floor area over that of the original dwellinghouse would be no more than 10% (measured externally). These saved policies pre-date the Framework. 8. The Council’s Proposed Submission Draft Local Plan (dLP) Policy 49 closely reflects Green Belt policy in the Framework. DLP Policy 51 then sets out similar criteria to those in UDP Policy G4. I give those policies limited weight as the dLP still has some way to go before it can be adopted, though I note this continuity in the Council’s approach to extensions in the Green Belt and its general alignment with the Framework. 9. The Council considers the proposed floorspace increase to be 11.5% in comparison to the original dwelling, reduced from 36% in the previous appeal. It accepts that this is broadly compliant with the 10% limit in UDP Policy G4. The appellant puts the increase slightly lower, at 9.3%. Either way, I am satisfied that the reduced scheme now accords with this key criterion of UDP Policy G4 and dLP Policy 51, which is the Council’s policy test for the assessment of whether extensions would represent disproportionate additions. I find that this relatively small scale proposal would be reasonably proportionate in relation to the original building. I conclude that it would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, in accordance with the policies set out above. Openness, character and appearance 10. In these circumstances, the Framework does not require an assessment of the proposal’s effect on the openness of the Green Belt, but its visual impact is still relevant. UDP Policy G1 and dLP Policy 51 state that extensions to houses in Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3207716 3 the Green Belt will only be permitted if they would not harm visual amenities or the open or rural character of the locality and would not result in a significant detrimental change in the overall form, bulk or character of the original dwellinghouse. UDP Policies BE1 and H8 and dLP Policies 6 and 37 aim to secure a high standard of design, ensuring that extensions respect or complement the host dwelling and are compatible with development in the surrounding area. These policies generally align with the Framework’s encouragement of good design and the enhancement of the Green Belt’s visual amenity. 11. The Council argues that the proposal would have a high and bulky roof profile which would also link up with the rear garage, creating a significant depth of rear projection and resulting in a significant detrimental change in the overall form, bulk and character of the original dwelling which would be detrimental to the openness of the locality. 12. In the previous appeal, the Inspector found that that proposal would cause a noticeable loss of openness within this low density and spacious residential enclave in the local countryside. Although the proposals are similar, there has been a notable reduction in the width of the main side extension which would leave it significantly further from the side boundary, maintaining a larger gap and reasonably minimising the impact on the open rural character of the neighbourhood. Other minor reductions in the scheme would further reduce its impact. I note that the proposed single storey side extension would still be quite tall, but it would be slim in profile and its design would fit well with the proportions and appearance of the existing building. The garage building already exists to the rear and the works to it would be neutral in their impact. 13. I conclude that the proposal would not materially harm the appearance or the open rural character of the locality or the Green Belt. It therefore accords with the above-mentioned policies. Conclusion 14. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should succeed. Les Greenwood INSPECTOR