Extension to existing garage block

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 November 2019 by Thomas Hatfield BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16th December 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/C4615/D/19/3239496 Little Barton, Worcester Lane, Hagley, DY9 0PR • 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 Mrs Swatkins against the decision of Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref P19/0891, dated 10 June 2019, was refused by notice dated 16 August 2019. • The development proposed is extension to existing garage block. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: (a) Whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (‘the Framework’) and development plan policy; (b) The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and (c) 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. Reasons Inappropriate development in Green Belt 3. Paragraph 145 of the Framework states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate, subject to a number of exceptions. One such exception is 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’. 4. Annex 2 of the Framework defines the ‘original building’ as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after that date, as it was built originally. In this case, it is acknowledged that the ‘original building’ was significantly extended following previous planning approvals in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. In this regard, the Council state that the original building has already been extended by Appeal Decision APP/C4615/D/19/3239496 2 340%, and that the proposal would cumulatively increase this to around 400%. The appellant has not disputed these figures. In my view, a cumulative increase of this magnitude clearly represents disproportionate additions to the size of the original building. 5. The proposed extension relates to a detached garage block that is positioned close to the main dwelling. In my view, the garage block is a normal domestic adjunct and the appeal proposal should therefore be regarded as an extension to the dwelling. 6. Separately, it has been put to me that the proposal would comply with the exception set out at Paragraph 145(g) of the Framework. This allows for limited infilling of previously developed land that would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development. However, the proposal would consist of an outward extension of the dwelling towards the road, which would not constitute “infilling” in my view. In addition, for the reasons set out in the following section, I consider that the proposal would result in a loss of openness. The exception at Paragraph 145(g) would not therefore apply in this case. 7. I conclude that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which Paragraph 143 of the Framework states is harmful by definition and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The proposal would also be contrary to Policy S23 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy (2017) in this regard. Openness 8. The proposal would introduce additional built footprint and volume onto land that is mostly open and would extend the existing dwelling towards the road. It would also be visible around the entrance to the host property, down the access lane that runs along its northern boundary, and in glimpses through the front boundary trees/hedges. The development would therefore fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt. In this regard, the Framework advises at Paragraph 133 that openness is an essential characteristic of Green Belts. Other considerations 9. The development would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would provide additional living space to the existing property. It would also generate some economic benefits during the construction phase, and through the purchasing of furnishings and fittings. However, these are modest benefits that are common to most developments of this type and size. 10. The proposal would not directly offend any of the 5 purposes that Green Belt serves, as set out at Paragraph 134 of the Framework. However, that is not uncommon in the case of domestic extensions, and it does not alter the fact that the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would result in a loss of openness. 11. Whilst the appeal site does not consist of open agricultural land, it is designated as being within the Green Belt in the development plan. It is therefore subject to Green Belt protections. Appeal Decision APP/C4615/D/19/3239496 3 Overall Balance and Conclusion 12. 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. The development is therefore contrary to Policy S23 of the Dudley Borough Development Strategy (2017) and guidance contained in the Framework. 13. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Thomas Hatfield INSPECTOR