Part first floor rear extension with changed floor plan layouts and replacement of existing detached garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 October 2018 by H Lock BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2nd November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/D/18/3208961 1 Leaves Green House, Leaves Green Road, Keston, Bromley, Kent, BR2 6DU  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 C Lamb against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Bromley  The application Ref. DC/18/01957/FULL6, dated 23 April 2018, was refused by notice dated 19 July 2018.  The development proposed is part first floor rear extension with changed floor plan layouts and replacement of existing detached garage. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. In Part E of the appeal form a different wording has been entered, but as the parties have not provided written confirmation that a revised description of development has been agreed I have used the one given on the original application. 3. The planning application form states that the works had commenced but had not been completed. It is unclear from the Council’s report the stage that the development had reached at the time of its decision, but at the time of the appeal site visit a first-floor rear extension and replacement garage had been built. However, the roof of the first-floor extension is different to that shown on the submitted plan, and openings to the garage also differ. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined this appeal on the basis of the development as proposed on the submitted plans, rather than as constructed. 4. The Council’s decision notice cites the National Planning Policy Framework 2012, but a revised Framework (‘the Framework’) has been published since the application was determined. However, as the national policies relevant to this proposal are consistent in both documents I have applied the latest document. Main Issues 5. The main issues are (1) whether the proposal is inappropriate development within the Green Belt (GB) for the purposes of planning policy set out in the Framework and the development plan;(2) the effect on the openness of the GB; and (3) if the development is inappropriate, whether the harm by reason Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3208961 2 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. Reasons Whether Inappropriate Development and Effect on Openness 6. The Framework confirms that the extension or alteration of a building is not inappropriate in the GB provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, defined in the glossary as a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was built originally. The same definition applies to Policy G4 of the Bromley Unitary Development Plan 2006 (UDP), but the criteria of the policy is more specific than the national policy, in that it limits extensions or alterations to dwellings in the GB to a net increase in floor area over that of the original dwelling to no more than 10%, measured externally. 7. A single-storey rear extension was built at the property following permission granted in 1983 (ref. 83.2144), but its precise size is not given. The appellant has provided a size for the original dwelling, but I note from the ‘existing floor plans and elevations’ and the ‘1983’ plan that the ground floor included a mix of flat and pitched roof elements. It is unclear if the now-demolished garage was an original or later structure. 8. However, whilst there may be some question over the precise increase that resulted from the 1983 extension, the appellant’s calculations confirm that the 10% limit set out in Policy G4 was exceeded by that development alone. The status of the former garage is not known, but the Council has included the replacement in its calculations given its location close to the house1. The combination of the existing and proposed extensions and the replacement garage would exceed the 10% limit by some margin. 9. The Framework does not define ‘disproportionate’, and I accept the appellant’s view that the prescriptive nature of the size limit of Policy G4 is inconsistent with national policy. Although a numerical base is a useful starting point this should be considered alongside the visual impact of a development. In this case, whilst in isolation the proposed first-floor addition may be reasonably modest, taken cumulatively with the existing ground floor addition the dwelling would appear much larger than its original form. Although the original first- floor rear wing appeared subservient in its proportions, the proposed increase in width would add to its visual mass. I note the Council’s view that the proposal would complement the host property and would not impact upon the street scene, but the flank elevation would nevertheless be highly visible as a result of the prominent position of the dwelling in the street scene and near to a byway. 10. Contrary to the reason for refusal, as the garage is seemingly a replacement and the extension is at first-floor level I do not consider that the proposal would reduce the openness of the GB at this point. Nevertheless, considered alongside the previous extension, the proposal would be disproportionate to the original dwelling. I therefore conclude that the proposal would constitute inappropriate development that is, by definition, harmful to the GB. This would 1 The explanatory text to UDP Policy G4 states that “This policy relates to proposals for extensions, alterations or outbuildings, which are to be sited within 5m of the existing dwelling house”. Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3208961 3 conflict with the aims of the Framework, with Policy 7.16 of The London Plan, UDP Policies G1 and G4, and the emerging Policy 49. In accordance with paragraph 144 of the Framework, this harm would have substantial weight. Other Matters 11. The Framework advises that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the GB and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It advises that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the GB, and that ‘very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the GB by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. I now turn to the arguments made in favour of the proposal. 12. The appellant advises that the proposed first-floor extension would be within the 10% limit specified in Policy G4. However, this does not take into account the previous addition to the dwelling, and the starting point for calculations in the national and local policy is the ‘original’, rather than existing, building. I note the appellant’s view that, having regard to the modest proportions of the original property, ‘just over 37%’ increase in floor area would not be disproportionate. However, in my view, it is because of this modest original size that additions of this amount would be significant. These factors therefore have limited weight. 13. The appellant advises that the first-floor extension would be set well within the confines of the existing building and its location to the rear of the property is such that it would not detract from the character of the street scene or read as an incongruous addition to the dwelling. The Council shares this assessment. However, any absence of harm in this regard would be balanced against the harm by definition of inappropriate development in the GB. 14. It is accepted that the first-floor addition would not increase the footprint of the original dwelling, and would not reduce the openness of the GB. This supports the proposal insofar as it does not create additional harm to the GB and its purposes, but must be balanced against the harm of inappropriate development. 15. The appellant advises that the demolished garage existed on site for several decades, and was shown on the 1983 plans for the extension. However, this does not demonstrate that it was constructed at the time of the original dwelling, or was in place in 1948. No photographic or other evidence of the building has been supplied and as it has been demolished I cannot verify its size and appearance. On the assumption that the replacement garage would be like-for-like in terms of its footprint and height, this could be a factor of significant weight but such an assessment cannot be made on the basis of the information supplied. 16. With regard to the garage, the appellant cites the Framework, that the replacement of a building is not inappropriate development provided that the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. The supporting text of UDP Policy G4 confirms that the resultant floor area of the dwelling referred to in the policy will include ancillary buildings within 5m, which are to be treated as extensions, although this is not wholly consistent with the more up-to-date Framework. Again, this could be an argument of some weight in support of the replacement garage, but on the Appeal Decision APP/G5180/D/18/3208961 4 basis of the information supplied I cannot verify the size of the building being replaced. 17. The appellant advises that the garage would likely fall within Class E of the Permitted Development allowance for householders, and therefore that express planning permission would not be required. In the absence of dimensioned plans I cannot make such an assessment, but in any case the garage forms part of the proposal and is for determination in this appeal. The exercise of Permitted Development rights would not be affected by this decision. 18. The appellant entered into pre-application discussions with the Council, but in the absence of any details I cannot place any weight on such negotiation. In any case, I have found the formal decision of the Council to be justified. 19. I acknowledge that no objections were received in response to consultation on the application. However, this is not determinative and offers neutral weight in support of the proposal. Green Belt Balancing Exercise and Conclusion 20. Having balanced the various matters, other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm to the GB by reason of inappropriateness and the conflict with national and local planning policy. The very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist, and I conclude that this appeal should be dismissed. H Lock INSPECTOR