Erection of a rear first floor extension with side front and rear single storey extensions (revised application to include a utility extension)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 April 2019 by Helen O'Connor LLB MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 May 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/G1630/D/18/3217535 1 Foley Cottage, Barrow, Boddington, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire GL51 0TL • 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 Stanley against the decision of Tewkesbury Borough Council. • The application Ref 18/00646/FUL, dated 16 June 2018, was refused by notice dated 17 August 2018. • The development proposed is the erection of a rear first floor extension with side front and rear single storey extensions (revised application to include a utility extension). Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issue 2. The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; • The effect on the openness of the Green Belt, and; • If inappropriate, 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 Whether Inappropriate Development 3. Policy SD5 of the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy 2011-2031, adopted 2017 (CS) indicates that development in the Green Belt is limited to those deemed appropriate by the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst the Framework advises that new buildings in the Green Belt are generally considered to be inappropriate development, it does set out some exceptions. Paragraph 145c of the Framework 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, amongst the stated exceptions. Neither policy SD5 of the CS nor the NPPF specify how ‘proportionality’ should be measured, and consequently there is no specific limit expressed as an amount of floorspace or volume. Appeal Decision APP/G1630/D/18/3217535 2 4. Essentially the parties disagree as to whether the appeal proposal represents a disproportionate addition to the original building at 1 Foley Cottage. The term ‘original building’ is defined in the Glossary to the Framework as a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was built originally. The Council consider this to amount to approximately 133.4sqm in floorspace. The appellant has not disputed this figure in relation to the main dwelling but considers that a further 39sqm should be counted as part of the original building due to the existence of a previous outbuilding. 5. However, there is little documentary or photographic evidence provided to support that claim, nor an indication of the age, volume or height of the outbuilding. Furthermore, from my observations at the site and the block plan provided, the approximate location of the outbuilding within the rear garden appears to have been some distance from the main house such that it would have read as a separate, albeit ancillary, building. As such, this does not support its inclusion as part of the size of the original main dwelling and therefore based on the evidence presented, I therefore consider that the former outbuilding cannot be counted as part of the original dwelling for the purpose of this appeal. 6. The main dwelling is a three storey semi-detached property and the plans suggest that it has had single storey linear extensions to the rear and a modest porch addition to the side. In addition, the Council have recently given permission for a sizeable extension1 at the appeal property which they calculated to amount to a 52.6% increase in floorspace over the original building. A 50% increase in floorspace is generally applied by the Council to determine what constitutes a proportionate addition to a dwelling with anything above this being considered disproportionate. However, the delegated report for the approved extension indicated that this was a marginal decision as it exceeded a 50% increase in floorspace but gave weight to the nature of the development that comprised additions above existing ground floor buildings rather than further extending the footprint of the building. 7. The appeal proposal is similar to the consented scheme save for the addition of a single storey utility area on the side elevation that consists of a floorspace of approximately 7.7sqm. Based on the floorspace figure for the original building as 133.4 sqm, this would amount to a cumulative increase in floorspace of 58.3% over the original building, which based on this measurement alone suggests a realtively large increase. 8. However, the Framework refers to size rather than just floorspace and consequently, this encompasses the consideration of volume and external dimensions. The proposed addition, albeit single storey and relatively small, would materially add to the volume and massing of the additional built form on the west side of the property. When taken together with the extensions that have already taken place, as well as those that have been permitted, this would result in an increase in size disproportionate to the original building. Therefore, it would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Openness 9. Although there are some surrounding buildings, the appeal site is located in a predominantly rural and open setting. The appellant indicates that the utility room proposal would barely be seen from the road, nevertheless glimpses of the side 1 Reference 17/00963/FUL Appeal Decision APP/G1630/D/18/3217535 3 extension would be possible given the open grassed area to the west of the appeal property. Furthermore, the cumulative increase in the size of the dwelling, rather than the utility room proposal in isolation, would be discernible within this rural context. Consequently, the appeal proposal, when taken with the cumulative extensions built and permitted, would notably increase the size of the building overall, thereby having an adverse spatial and visual impact upon the openness of the Green Belt. This would result in moderate harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Other considerations 10. The appellant highlights the minor scale of the proposal over that which has already been permitted. However, given that proportionality relates to the cumulative size of additions over the size of the original building, it logically follows that a small extension could potentially represent a disproportionate addition if the building has been previously extended. There must come a point at which the built form becomes disproportionate overall, notwithstanding the small scale of each incremental addition. Otherwise, such an argument could be relied upon repeatedly. 11. The appellant points out that the proposal would not result in harm to the rural character and appearance of the area, or cause harm to the living conditions of neighbours. The lack of harm in these regards is a neutral factor as these are matters that would be required to satisfy other local and national policies. 12. In support of the proposal the appellant considers the addition to be an aesthetic improvement that will provide a benefit to his growing family. Furthermore, account has been taken of the general support for the scheme expressed by Boddington Parish Council and neighbouring residents. These factors attract some weight albeit limited. 13. My attention has also been drawn to planning approvals at Sundorne Barrow2 and Burley Lodge Stables3 which the appellant considers to have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the appeal proposal. In relation to Sundorne Barrow, the submitted floorplan refers to a total increase in the floor area of 49.36%. Similarly, in relation to the development at Burley Lodge Stables, the information provided suggests the extension related to an approximate 49% increase in floorspace. Based on the limited evidence provided, it is not certain in either case whether the Council found the proposals to be not inappropriate development in the Green Belt. However, they would appear to be broadly consistent with the Council’s general approach to measuring proportionality using a 50% increase in floorspace as the upper limit. As such these examples attract limited weight, and in any event, I have determined the appeal proposal on its own merits. 14. Although the appellant indicates that he would be prepared to offset the approved increase in porch area in preference to the utility area, I am required to determine the proposal that is before me. In any event, no mechanism or plans have been provided in order to secure such an off-set, and as such, this carries minimal weight. Green Belt balancing exercise 2 Reference 17/00082/FUL 3 Reference 16/01199/FUL Appeal Decision APP/G1630/D/18/3217535 4 15. Paragraph 144 of the Framework advises that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Moreover, very special circumstances to allow inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In this case, the proposal amounts to inappropriate development, and moderate harm would also be caused to the openness of the Green Belt. These factors attract substantial weight. Whilst other considerations advanced by the appellant have been considered, even taken together these garner only limited weight. 16. Accordingly, I find that the other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the harm identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. 17. Therefore, the proposal would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and harm to openness. It would therefore be contrary to policy SD5 of the CS whose principal objective is to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development in line with the advice in the Framework. Conclusion 18. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Helen O’Connor Inspector