Two storey side extension, with demolition of existing garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 January 2026 by Elaine Moulton BA (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 9 February 2026 Appeal Ref: 6001358 8 Grange Gardens, Todwick, Rotherham S26 1JR • 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 Chloe Eyre against the decision of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council. • The application Ref is RB2025/0811. • The development proposed is two storey side extension, with demolition of existing garage. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. 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; • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal. Reasons Whether inappropriate development 3. The appeal property lies in the Green Belt where development is inappropriate unless it falls within identified exceptions set out in the Framework. One such exception, at paragraph 154(c), 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. Policy CS 4 of the Core Strategy (CS), adopted September 2014, and Policy SP 2 of the Rotherham Local Plan Sites and Policies (LP), adopted June 2018, state that the Rotherham Green Belt will be protected from inappropriate development as set out in national planning policy. LP Policy SP 4 relates to extensions to buildings in the Green Belt and, consistent with the Framework, states that they may be appropriate provided that they do not result in disproportionate additions over and above the original building. The Council considers that an increase in excess of 33% in the external volume of the original building would be disproportionate. Appeal Decision 6001358 2 5. The main parties agree that cumulatively the proposed extension would result in a volume increase of the original building of 79.33%. There is nothing before me that would lead me to disagree with such calculations. This is a significant exceedance of the 33% threshold set out in LP Policy SP 4. Furthermore, it is not just the percentage increases that is determinative to my judgement. In this case the proposal would add a considerable mass to the building greatly increasing its overall size. I therefore find that it would result in disproportionate additions to the original building. 6. Paragraph 154(c) of the Framework refers to ‘size’ and accordingly, a quantitative, not a qualitative, assessment is required. Therefore, although the proposal is of an acceptable design, this does not lead to a conclusion that the proposal meets the paragraph 154(c) exception. 7. I have considered the appeal decisions1 relating to the assessment of proportionality as cited by the appellant. Whilst the full details of those cases, including their design and context, are not before me it is apparent floorspace increases were considered, whereas volume calculations have been presented in this case. Therefore, the assessments carried out were not directly comparable to the one that I have undertaken in respect of the appeal that is before me. Furthermore, the Inspector in both cases assessed the site-specific implications of the proposals which reflects the approach I have taken in this appeal. As such, those decisions do not alter my findings in this regard. 8. Accordingly, the proposal would be inappropriate development, and, in that regard, it would conflict with CS Policy CS 4 and LP Policy SP 2. Openness 9. Paragraph 142 of the Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. 10. Due to the position of the appeal site at the end of a cul-de-sac some distance away from the A57, the proposal would not be prominent in views from the public domain. It would not, therefore, harm the visual openness of the Green Belt. However, the proposal would result in a significant increase in the scale and massing of the dwelling and, for this reason, would result in a harmful loss of the spatial openness of the Green Belt. Such loss would amount to moderate harm to the Green Belt. Other considerations 11. The appellant has referred to a Certificate of Lawful Development (CLD) issued earlier this year, for rear and side single storey detached outbuildings. There is nothing before me that would suggest that the CLD outbuildings would not be built if this appeal was dismissed and, as such, this is a material fall-back position. However, for a fall-back position to weigh heavily in favour of a proposal there shall normally be a real prospect of a closely comparable form of development occurring. 12. Whilst I accept that sizeable, detached outbuildings could be constructed without the need for planning permission, I am unconvinced that they would provide 1 APP/Y3615/W/18/3202309 & APP/W3005/W/24/3356635 Appeal Decision 6001358 3 equivalent accommodation to that proposed in this appeal. It has not, therefore, been demonstrated that a comparable development to the appeal proposal could be brought forward under permitted development rights should planning permission be refused. Consequently, I attribute limited weight to the identified fall- back position in favour of the appeal proposal. 13. Additional accommodation would be provided by the proposal which would improve the functionality and flexibility of the home. Nevertheless, no compelling evidence has been presented that there is an identified need for a family dwelling of the proposed size. Any economic benefits that would arise from the construction of the proposal would be very modest given the relatively limited scale of the development. I therefore attribute limited weight to such benefits. 14. The proposal would respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area, as referred to above, and would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupants. However, the absence of harm is a neutral factor and not a matter to be weighed in favour of the proposal. Furthermore, even if I were to agree that the property is close to local amenities and is therefore in an accessible location, this is also a neutral factor. Green Belt balance and conclusions 15. Paragraph 153 of the Framework states that when considering any planning application, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 16. I have concluded that the appeal scheme would be inappropriate development and would, by definition, harm the Green Belt. I have also found moderate harm to its openness. 17. The other considerations I have identified are of limited weight in favour of the proposal. Consequently, these considerations, along with all other matters acknowledged in the evidence, do not clearly outweigh the identified harm to the Green Belt, either individually or collectively, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Conclusion 18. The proposal conflicts with the development plan when considered as a whole and there are no material considerations, either individually or in combination, that outweighs the identified harms and associated development plan conflict. 19. Accordingly, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Elaine Moulton INSPECTOR