Erection of a two storey extension to existing dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 November 2018 by W Johnson BA (Hons) Dip TP Dip UDR MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/A0665/D/18/3209648 Hunters Lodge, Cogshall Lane, Little Leigh, Northwich, Cheshire CW9 6BP  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 Miss Catherine Gerrard against the decision of Cheshire West & Chester Council.  The application Ref 18/01571/FUL, dated 17 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 9 August 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of a two storey extension to existing dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. For clarity, I have taken the title of the appellant from the appeal form, as the title provided on the application form was unclear. Main Issues 3. The main issues are:  Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies;  If it is inappropriate development, its effect on the openness of the Green Belt;  The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal site and the local area; and,  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. Reasons Inappropriate development 4. The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It goes on to state that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. In addition, the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt subject to Appeal Decision APP/A0665/D/18/3209648 2 a number of exceptions as set out in paragraph 145. One of the exceptions cited is the extension of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the ‘original building’. 5. The national policy advice in the Framework has to be read together with the relevant development plan, which in this case includes the Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Part One) 2015 (LPP1) and the Vale Royal Borough Local Plan 2006 (LP). Policy STRAT 9 of the LPP1 sets out that in areas of the countryside that are within the Green Belt, additional restrictions will apply in line with the Framework. Saved Policy H8 of the LP, seeks to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development through disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling. 6. The Cheshire West and Chester Local Plan (Part Two) (LPP2) has been submitted for examination, but is at an early stage. Therefore, owing to the early stage of the LPP2, I am only able to give emerging Policy DM21 little weight in my assessment, which requires development in the Green Belt not to result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 7. There is no definition within the Framework of ‘disproportionate’. The Council’s evidence on this matter in the Officer Report advises that the host dwelling has already been extended by approximately 55%. The appeal proposal combined with previous extensions to the original building would then result in an increase of approximately 74%. The appellant’s evidence does not dispute these figures. Therefore on the evidence before me I concur with the Council and conclude that the appeal proposal would amount to a disproportionate addition to the original building. Consequently the appeal scheme does not constitute an exception listed under paragraph 145 of the Framework. 8. For these reasons, the appeal scheme would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and in this regard, it would conflict with LPP1 Policy STRAT 9; LP Policy H8; emerging LPP2 Policy DM21 and the policies of the Framework. I attach substantial weight to the harm arising due to the inappropriate nature of the development. Openness 9. Paragraph 133 of the Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It identifies openness as an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. There is no definition of “openness” in the Framework, but it is commonly taken to mean the absence of built or otherwise urbanising development rather than being primarily about visual effects. 10. The development would introduce additional built footprint and volume to the host dwelling, and would increase the built up nature of the appeal site. It would also be clearly visible in views from along the road. 11. I conclude that the appeal proposal would fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore, it would be contrary to the relevant Green Belt guidance within the Framework. Accordingly, I must give such Green Belt harm substantial weight in my assessment and determination of this appeal. Appeal Decision APP/A0665/D/18/3209648 3 Character and appearance 12. From my observations, due to the scale, bulk and design of the extension, when assessed against all of the previous additions to the original dwelling, I consider that the extension overwhelms the character and appearance of the host dwelling. It appears as an incongruous addition not in keeping with the form of the original dwelling, appearing as an overly wide addition relative to its existing proportions. I note that the appellant considers the dwelling to be screened from the road by the mature trees, wall and gates. However, whilst I also noticed a mature hedge on this front boundary, it was still possible to view the dwelling from parts of Cogshall Lane, including views of the area where the proposed extension would be located. 13. Additionally, the larger windows proposed in the front elevation of the two storey extension create an irregular fenestration detail on the property that again emphasises the excessive width of the proposal. These factors would diminish and unbalance the character and appearance of the host building to the detriment of the surrounding area. The adverse effect of the proposal would not be sufficiently mitigated through the modest lower ridge line and set back from the existing front elevation. Although the appeal site benefits from a large plot, this would not provide sufficient mitigation to overcome the harmful effect of the proposal. 14. Therefore, I conclude on this issue that the proposed extension would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the appeal site and local area, contrary to LPP1 Policies STRAT9, ENV2 and ENV6, which require development to be of an appropriate scale and design to not harm the character of the countryside; take full account of the characteristics of the development site, its relationship with its surroundings, and achieves a high standard of design. It would also be contrary to LP Policies GS5, BE1 and H8, which seek to protect the open countryside, safeguard the quality of the existing built environment, and seek to avoid disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling. 15. As a result, the proposal would also be contrary to Paragraph 127 of the Framework, insofar as it aims to secure good architecture, which seeks to ensure that development is sympathetic to local character and adds to the overall quality of the area. It would also fail to accord with the Vale Royal Borough Council Supplementary Planning Guidance 3: House Extensions a Design Guide 1996, which, amongst other things, seeks to maintain the individual character and amenity of residential areas throughout the Borough. Other considerations 16. Paragraph 144 of the Framework requires decision makers to ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. Other considerations in favour of the development must clearly outweigh the harm. 17. The appellant has not specifically referred to any very special circumstances. However, they consider that the proposal would comply with development plan policies and the Framework and would not represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt. 18. Whilst I acknowledge there would be some limited economic and social benefits resulting from the development they are not sufficient to outweigh the harm Appeal Decision APP/A0665/D/18/3209648 4 identified above. I have considered the development on its own merits and concluded there would be harm for the reasons set out above. Overall Balance and Conclusion 19. The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would reduce openness in this location. The Framework states that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Even when taken together, the other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. 20. For the above reasons, and having had regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is dismissed. W Johnson INSPECTOR