Two storey front extension and single storey side and rear extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 October 2018 by Christopher Thomas BSc DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/A0665/D/18/3208151 Silver Birch, Knutsford Road, Antrobus, Northwich, CW9 6JW  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 Robert McGuinness against the decision of Cheshire West and Chester Council.  The application Ref 18/01301/FUL, dated 4 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 26 June 2018.  The development proposed is two storey front extension and single storey side and rear extensions. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are: i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the North Cheshire Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies; ii) the effect on the openness of the Green Belt; iii) the effect on the character and appearance of the existing building; and iv) 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 Inappropriate development 3. The appeal property is a detached dormer bungalow with an attached garage to the side and a conservatory to the rear located in the rural settlement of Antrobus. The proposal seeks to extend the existing building through ground and first floor extensions with the addition of two gables on the front elevation and by means of single storey side and rear extensions. 4. The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special Appeal Decision APP/A0665/D/18/3208151 2 circumstances (para. 145). The construction of new buildings are to be considered as inappropriate in the Green Belt unless the development falls within a number of specified 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. 5. The original building appears to be the bungalow and attached garage without the conservatory, which has the appearance of being a later addition. The appellant has stated that the proposal would increase the floor area of the dwelling by 127 sq m. The Council considers that there would be an increase in floor area of approximately 73% over that in the original building, which although in giving this figure the Council has not explicitly stated that it has excluded the conservatory from its calculation, even so if it did not the percentage increase in floor area would be substantial. 6. The appellant has not disputed the Council’s figure and I have therefore treated it as a reasonable estimation of the proportionate increase in size over that of the original building. In my judgement such an increase in size as a result of the proposed extensions would be disproportionate to the size of the original building. 7. I conclude, therefore, that the proposal would result in inappropriate development which by definition is harmful to the Green Belt. I have attached considerable weight to this conclusion. Effect on openness 8. The proposed extensions would considerably enlarge the footprint of the building and significantly increase its bulk and mass resulting in some loss of openness to the Green Belt. 9. I have attached substantial weight to this failure to preserve the openness of the Green Belt which is one of its essential characteristics as set out in the Framework (para.133). Effect on the character and appearance of the existing building 10.The existing property gives the appearance of being a relatively small, single storey bungalow in views from Knutsford Road. However, it has dormer windows in the rear elevation serving the first floor bedrooms and associated ensuite bathrooms and from this perspective it has more of the appearance of a two storey dormer bungalow. I consider, therefore, that in this context the significant alterations to the front elevation would not be harmful to the building’s character and appearance. 11.There would be no alteration to the main ridge line of the building and despite the forward extension of the garage and the increase in the height of its roof the side extension would retain its visual subservience in relation to the main part of the building. I consider the alterations at the rear would not be out of keeping with the building’s overall character and appearance. 12.I conclude on this issue, therefore, that the proposal would not harm the existing building’s character and appearance and would therefore comply with policy ENV6 of the Cheshire West and Chester Council Local Plan (Part One) and retained policy H8 of the Vale Royal Local Plan both of which expect new Appeal Decision APP/A0665/D/18/3208151 3 development to be of high quality design in line with the requirement of the Framework. Other considerations 13.The appellant has put forward a fallback position which would involve a front porch, single storey side extension and two storey rear extension. This would result in an extra 136 sq m of floor space which would be slightly greater by about 9 sq m than the appeal proposal. The appellant contends that the larger extension at the rear under the fallback position would be less visually desirable than the appeal scheme which would in his view enhance the front elevation. 14.I consider that there is a strong likelihood that this fallback scheme would be implemented were the appeal proposal to be turned down since it would be a feasible means of providing the increased accommodation sought by the appellant. Also, I concur with the appellant’s view that in terms of design merits the appeal proposal would be a better solution than the fallback scheme. Accordingly, I have given some weight to this consideration in reaching my overall conclusion. Overall conclusion 15.I have concluded that the proposal would be inappropriate development which by definition is harmful to the Green Belt. Furthermore, I have concluded that the openness of the Green Belt would not be preserved which would be harmful to one of the main purposes for designating the Green Belt. Although I have concluded that the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host building would not be harmful, nevertheless I have attached considerable weight to the finding of inappropriateness and substantial weight to the failure to preserve the openness of the Green Belt. 16.The fallback position outlined by the appellant is a feasible alternative scheme for extending the dwelling which in all likelihood could be implemented. It would not be as desirable in design terms as the appeal proposal and this adds some weight to the appellant’s case. However, the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriate development and loss of openness would not be clearly outweighed by this other consideration and accordingly, the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal do not exist. 17.I have taken into account all other matters raised but for the reasons I have given this appeal has been dismissed. C Thomas INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/A0665/D/18/3208151 4