Single/two storey rear extensions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 February 2019 by J Davis BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 March 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/J1915/D/18/3219125 Jenningsbury Farm, London Road, Hertford, SG13 7NS • 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 Martin Berry against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. • The application Ref 3/18/1786/HH, dated 4 August 2018, was refused by notice dated 1 October 2018. • The development proposed is single/two storey rear extensions. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The Council’s decision notice refers to policies GBC1 and ENV5 of the East Herts Local Plan Second Review April 2007. Since the application was determined, the East Herts District Plan (2018) has been formally adopted and it supersedes the East Herts Local Plan. Both parties are aware of this and have been given the opportunity to comment. I have determined the appeal on this basis. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this appeal area: • Whether the proposed development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, • Its effect on the openness of the Green Belt, • 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 Inappropriate development 4. The appeal concerns a two-storey detached house situated in a large plot within the Green Belt. The proposal is for a two-storey rear extension and a first floor rear extension. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that a local planning authority should regard construction of Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3219125 2 new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. This is subject to the exceptions listed in the Framework which include 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 GBR1 of the adopted East Herts District Plan (2018) (LP) states that planning applications in the Green Belt will be considered in line with the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework. 5. There is disagreement between the appellant and the Council regarding the amount the floor area of the original dwelling would increase as a result of the proposal. The appellant states that this would be just over 60% whilst the Council state that the increase would be 86.5%. However, neither party has provided substantive evidence as to how their figures were derived. 6. The Framework does not define what a disproportionate increase in size would be. Notwithstanding the disagreement between the appellant and the Council regarding the precise increase in floor area, in my judgment the proposed extensions would result in a significant increase in size in relation to the original dwelling. 7. The proposed extensions would therefore result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling. As such I conclude that the appeal proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, as defined by the Framework, harmful and substantial weight should be given to that harm. Furthermore, in this respect, the appeal proposal would not comply with the requirements of Policy GRB1 of the East Herts District Plan (2018). Openness 8. The Framework confirms that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence. 9. The proposed first floor and two storey extensions when taken in combination, would result in significant additional built volume and bulk. The increase in bulk and mass would be accentuated by the repeating gable ends and associated roof design. Whilst the extensions would be seen in the context of the existing dwelling and its existing rear projections, I nonetheless conclude that overall, the proposal would result in harm to the openness of the Green Belt. I assign moderate weight to this further harm to the Green Belt. Other considerations 10. I concur with the views of the Council that the proposed development would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the appeal property. However, this is a neutral factor which does not weigh for or against the proposal in the overall balance. 11. The appellant has referred to the sustainability benefits of the proposal including the provision of solar panels, rain water harvesting and improved insulation. However, in the absence of further details I afford this matter only limited weight. In addition, the appellant states that the proposal would enhance the enjoyment of the property for all the family, creating a stable home and helping the appellant’s children to hopefully secure employment locally and allowing them to become valued members of the village community. However, while I acknowledge the personal benefit this may represent, in the Appeal Decision APP/J1915/D/18/3219125 3 absence of any specific evidence regarding family circumstances, this is a matter which I afford limited weight. 12. Inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt, and I have given substantial weight to this and moderate weight to the harm to openness I have identified. Taken together, the stated sustainability benefits of the proposal and the enhanced enjoyment of the property for the family, are not sufficient to outweigh the harm the proposed development would do to the Green Belt by reason of its inappropriateness and the harm to openness. Therefore, I conclude that evidence has not been presented to demonstrate that very special circumstances exist to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. As such the proposal would conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy GRB1 of the East Herts District Plan (2018). Conclusion 13. For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. J Davis INSPECTOR