Two-storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 February 2026 by C Walker BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4th February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001342 St Michaels Croft, Durrants Lane, Northchurch, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire HP4 3TR • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Fabian Wagner against the decision of Dacorum Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/01924/FHA. • The development proposed is a two-storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a two-storey side extension at St Michaels Croft, Durrants Lane, Northchurch, Berkhamsted, Hertfordshire HP4 3TR in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01924/FHA, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: 3340 351 00 Rev A (Existing Site Plan) 3340 351 103 H (Proposed Elevations) 3340 351 104 B (Section plans) 3340-351-100 D (Proposed Site plans) 3340-351-101 D (Proposed Ground Floor plans) 3340-351-102 D (Proposed First Floor plans) 3340-351-105 (Proposed Roof Plan) Preliminary Matter 2. For conciseness, I have utilised the Council’s description of development. Main Issues 3. The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies, including its effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and Appeal Decision 6001342 2 • if inappropriate, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal. Reasons 4. The appeal site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt as defined by the policies map of Dacorum’s Local Planning Framework Core Strategy 2006-2031(adopted 2013) (Core Strategy). 5. Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy sets out that the Council will apply national Green Belt policy to protect the openness and character of the Green Belt, local distinctiveness and the physical separation of settlements. It goes on to say that within the Green Belt, small-scale development will be permitted including limited extensions to existing buildings provided that (i) it has no significant impact on the character and appearance of the countryside; and (ii) it supports the rural economy and maintenance of the wider countryside. 6. The Framework makes clear that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It goes on to set out that development should be regarded as inappropriate unless one of a list of exceptions apply. 7. The Council do not consider the proposal would meet either the Core Strategy Policy CS5, or any of the exceptions listed at Paragraph 154 of the Framework. However, the appellant seeks to argue that the proposal meets the exception at Paragraph 154(g). Whether infill or partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land 8. The exception at Paragraph 154(g) of the Framework allows for limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL) (including a material change of use to residential or mixed use including residential), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. 9. There is no dispute that the proposal involves the demolition of an existing conservatory to facilitate a two-storey side extension. ‘Redevelopment’ is not defined within the Framework. To my mind ‘redevelopment’ means developing something again or differently. Indeed, the appellant cites the Oxford dictionary definition of ‘involving the demolition of existing structures and the subsequent rebuilding or renovation of new facilities.’ 10. The conservatory to be demolished has foundations, is physically attached to and forms part of the dwelling. Therefore, taking the ordinary meaning of ‘redevelopment’, I am satisfied that the proposal of demolishing the conservatory to make way for an alternative development would constitute partial redevelopment in the context of the meaning of the Framework. 11. The Framework excludes land in built-up areas such as residential gardens from the definition of PDL. However, I would not regard the site, which reads visually as part of the rural area, and is located outside of the defined settlement boundary, to be built up. Consequently, I find that it meets the definition of PDL. Appeal Decision 6001342 3 12. The test then turns on whether the development would cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Openness 13. In spatial terms, the two-storey extension would increase the footprint of development on the plot overall. The proposal would have a moderate adverse effect on the openness of the Green Belt spatially, through its footprint, mass and height over the existing situation. 14. The proposal would sit to its south, projecting east in line with the existing dwelling. The extension is well contained within its curtilage which is surrounded by mature, established trees such that this is not a prominent site from public vantage points. As such it would have a limited visual impact on the openness of the Green Belt. 15. Drawing together both the spatial and visual dimensions of openness, I find that there would be moderate harm. Conclusions on whether inappropriate development 16. Neither the wording of Core Strategy Policy CS5 or its supporting text defines what it means by ‘small-scale development’ or ‘limited extensions’. I acknowledge that the extension proposed is large, which the Council indicate would increase the size of the original building by around 281.9%. At such a large increase, I do not find this to be a limited extension. However, in my judgement the proposal for a residential extension would be inherently small-scale, as amongst other things, it would not meet the definition of major1 development. 17. It is common ground that the proposal would not have a significant impact on the character and appearance of the countryside, in compliance with Core Strategy Policy CS5(c) (i). Additionally, I am not persuaded that the requirement at criterion (ii), to support the rural economy and maintenance of the wider countryside, is of relevance here. 18. In any case, I attribute more weight to the Framework given this is more up to date. The threshold for harm in the Framework only requires that the development should not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The moderate harm identified does not amount to substantial harm to openness, in the context of paragraph 154(g) of the Framework. 19. As I have found the proposal to accord with the exception outlined above, it is not necessary for me to consider the scheme against paragraph 154(c) of the Framework which relates to whether the proposal would constitute a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. 20. Consequently, I find that the development would not represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework. As such, I do not need to consider whether very special circumstances exist. Other Matters 21. Both the appellant and the Council refer to other decisions that they assert support their respective cases. However, none of these are before me in evidence, so they do not alter my findings on this appeal. 1 as defined in The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015. Appeal Decision 6001342 4 Conditions 22. In addition to the standard time condition, for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of certainty, I have imposed a condition specifying the approved plans. External facing materials are noted on the approved plans and are acceptable. As such, a separate condition is not necessary to secure these. Conclusion 23. There are some inconsistencies between Policy CS5 of the Core Strategy and the Framework, such that the scheme does not fully accord with the development plan. However, for the reasons set out above, the Framework, as an important material consideration indicates that the decision should be made other than accordance with it. Thus, having regard to all matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. C Walker INSPECTOR