Side, front and rear extensions and removal existing roof and erection of re-pitched roof with dormer windows

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 December 2018 by S Poole BA(Hons) DipArch MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/D/18/3211204 Hammonia, 2 Gypsy Close, Great Amwell, Ware, Herts SG12 9RW  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 & Mrs E & Y Groom against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council.  The application Ref 3/18/1463/HH, dated 26 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 20 August 2018.  The development proposed is described on the application form as “side, front and rear extensions and removal existing roof and erection of re-pitched roof with dormer windows”. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The East Herts District Plan was adopted on 23 October 2018 and replaces the East Herts Local Plan Second Review 2007. I am required to consider the appeal against the development plan in place at the time of my decision and therefore the policies in the Local Plan are no longer relevant to the appeal. I am satisfied that the policies in the District Plan (2018) are not materially different from those referred to in the decision notice and therefore have not deemed it necessary to seek parties’ comments on this matter. Main Issues 3. Whilst the reason for refusal refers to District Plan Policy DES4 the Council has not demonstrated that there is any conflict with this policy. As such the main issues in this case are: (i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development for the purposes of section 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) and development plan policy; (ii) the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and (iii) if the proposal is inappropriate development, 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. Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3211204 2 Reasons Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development 4. Paragraph 145 of the Framework states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate. A number of exceptions to this are identified including proposals comprising 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 appeal property is a 3 bedroom detached chalet bungalow which occupies a large plot in a residential area. The appeal proposal would comprise a range of front, side and rear additions together with the reconfiguration of the roof to enable the formation of 4 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms at first floor level. 6. The Council suggests that the proposal would result in a dwelling with a floor area totalling a cumulative increase of approximately 176% over and above the size of the original dwelling. The appellant has not provided any calculations, although I note that the increase in the volume of the property may not be of quite the same magnitude. However the evidence before me clearly indicates that the proposal would result in substantial additions over and above the size of the original building. 7. For these reasons I conclude that the proposal would result in disproportionate additions to the appeal property over and above the size of the original building. The proposal is therefore contrary to paragraph 145 of the Framework. For these reasons it would be inappropriate development that is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. I attribute substantial weight to this. Openness of the Green Belt 8. Paragraph 133 of the Framework states 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. 9. The proposal would result in a significant increase in the volume, bulk and amount of development on the site. It would reduce, and therefore cause harm to, the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal therefore also conflicts with the Framework in this respect, a matter to which I also attribute substantial weight. Other considerations 10. I turn now to consider whether there are any considerations sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm identified above in respect of inappropriateness and openness. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 11. The appellant has referred to District Plan Policy VILL2 and the fact that Great Amwell is defined under this policy as a Group 2 Village. Whilst Policy VILL2 states that limited infill development will be permitted in Group 2 Villages this is subject to various design criteria being satisfied and “all other relevant policies” in the District Plan. As such this Policy does not override Policy GBR1, which states that planning applications within the Green Belt will be considered in line with the provisions of the Framework. Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3211204 3 12. Despite the generally built-up nature of its surroundings, the appeal site is located in the Green Belt and therefore the proposal needs be assessed against the paragraphs 145 and 133 of the Framework and not against the purposes of the Green Belt set out at paragraph 134. Green Belt balancing exercise 13. The other considerations do not amount to matters that clearly outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt which I have identified in respect of the proposal’s inappropriateness and effect on openness. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development do not therefore exist. The proposal is therefore contrary to the Framework and District Plan Policy GBR1. 14. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail. S Poole INSPECTOR