Single storey rear extension, replacing existing, to detached dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 December 2018 by Kevin Savage BA MPlan MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 07 January 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/C2741/D/18/3211900 111 Temple Lane, Copmanthorpe, York YO23 3TE  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 S McGerr against the decision of City of York Council.  The application Ref 18/01628/FUL, dated 5 July 2018, was refused by notice dated 31 August 2018.  The development proposed is a single storey rear extension, replacing existing, to detached dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. There is no development plan for York, except for the saved policies YH9(C) and Y1(C1 and C2) of the Yorkshire and Humber Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS)1, which relate to York's Green Belt which extends about 6 miles from the city centre, encompassing the appeal site. The Council approved the Development Control Local Plan (DCLP) for development control purposes in April 2005. This document and its policies do not form part of a statutory development plan for the purposes of S38(6) of the Planning and Compensation Act 2004, but can form material considerations in planning applications. Main Issues 3. The site lies within an area of Green Belt. Therefore, the main issues are:  Whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt;  The effect on the openness of the Green Belt;  If the development is inappropriate, whether any 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 it. 1 Saved under the Regional Strategy for Yorkshire and Humber (Partial Revocation) Order 2013. Appeal Decision APP/C2741/D/18/3211900 2 Reasons Whether inappropriate development in Green Belt 4. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The National Planning Policy Framework2 (the Framework) states that the construction of new buildings within the Green Belt is inappropriate development, but lists certain forms of development which are not regarded as inappropriate. This includes 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. Policy GB1 of the DCLP, and Policy GB1 of the City of York Publication Draft Local Plan 2018 (the CYPDLP), which was submitted for examination on 25 May 2018, set out similar restrictions on Green Belt development. 5. The main parties to the appeal agree that the proposed extension, taken together with existing extensions, would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. I have no reason to reach a different view, based on all I have seen and read. Consequently, the proposal amounts to inappropriate development within the Green Belt, and would conflict with the Framework, and with the aims of Policies GB1 of both the DCLP and CYPDLP. However, given the unadopted status of both of these policies, I ascribe them limited weight. Effect on Openness 6. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, and the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Openness in terms of the Green Belt has a spatial aspect as well as a visual aspect. 7. The proposed extension would be located to the rear of the dwelling, and in spatial terms would add built form where there presently is none. Visually, whilst extending into the rear garden, the extension would remain well set back from the depth of the existing extension alongside the boundary with 113 Temple Lane, which would screen it in views from this side. From the rear, it would be seen against a backdrop of the existing building. The side of the extension would be visible from the road and from the front garden of 109 Temple Lane, and whilst the scale of the extension in these views would be limited, it would nonetheless add to the overall built form of the dwelling, and this would result in a modest loss of openness. Other considerations 8. The extension would replicate the appearance of the existing rear elevation, and the Council raised no objection to the proposal’s effect on the character and appearance of the area. Neither did the Council raise objection in respect of the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. I have no reason to reach a different conclusion in these respects. These considerations are, however, neutral factors weighing neither for nor against the proposal. 9. The appellants contend that the proposed development, in an amended form, would amount to permitted development, which they would seek to take up should the appeal not succeed. The suggested fall back scheme would require the omission of proposed roof lanterns, and for the extension to be detached 2 Published 24 July 2018 Appeal Decision APP/C2741/D/18/3211900 3 from the existing deep rear extension to the side, as the appellants accept the Council’s position that if they were considered cumulatively, they would not satisfy the relevant limitations of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the GPDO), namely that the extension would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse and would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. 10. The information before me in respect of an alternative scheme is limited to a sketch plan within the appellants’ statement. However, I note that a kitchen extension dating from January 1995 would be replaced and that area incorporated into the proposal. This extension would also appear to extend beyond a side wall of the original dwellinghouse, that to the dining room. If that is the case, it is possible that the alternative scheme would still conflict with the same limitation of the GPDO. In the absence of more substantive evidence the alternative proposal could be undertaken under permitted development, I am not satisfied that there is a realistic prospect of another scheme being advanced which would be comparable to the appeal proposal. 11. Moreover, even if the suggested fall-back position were to amount to permitted development, I note the appellants acknowledge it would result in a ‘useless separation gap’ and the regrettable absence of the roof lanterns. In my view, such compromises would reduce the likelihood of this alternative scheme being undertaken. For these reasons, I attach limited weight to the suggested alternative scheme as a fall-back. Planning Balance 12. The proposal would amount to inappropriate development as defined by the Framework, and which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. In addition, the proposal would lead to a small loss of openness to the Green Belt. Substantial weight should be given to the harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations. 13. As explained, I limited weight to the other considerations advanced by the appellants and in the wider evidence, but I find that these do not clearly outweigh the harm the scheme would cause. Consequently, there are not the very special circumstances necessary to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Conclusion 14. Therefore, for all of the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Kevin Savage INSPECTOR