Building of a ground floor front extension by reallocating the previously approved rear extension (95m2) Ref 3/25/046 9/PNHH

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 March 2026 by K Winnard LL.B Hons Solicitor an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002962 2A Raffin Park, Datchworth, Hertfordshire, SG3 6RR. • 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 Terry Farmer against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. • The application Ref is 3/25/1135/HH. • The development proposed is described as the building of a ground floor front extension by reallocating the previously approved rear extension (95m2) Ref 3/25/046 9/PNHH. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. Notwithstanding the description of development set out above, which is taken from the application form, it is clear from the plan and accompanying details that the development comprises of the erection of a single storey front extension with loft conversion and installation of 5 No. rooflights to front, rear and side slopes. The Council dealt with the proposal on this basis and so shall I. Main Issues 3. The main issues in the appeal 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 any relevant effects on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and, • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal. Reasons Whether inappropriate development in the Green Belt 4. The appeal property is a detached dwelling which has been previously extended and is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Framework states that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate development within the Green Belt unless the development falls within specified exceptions. Paragraph 154 of the Appeal Decision 6002962 2 Framework list exceptions which are not inappropriate development. These include at paragraph 154 (c) the extension or alteration of a building provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, or the building as existed in 1948. Local Plan Policy GBR1 of the East Herts District Plan 2018 (Local Plan) defers to the Framework in this regard. 5. The Council advises that the original property was approximately 156.6sqm in size. The current proposal, taking into account previous extensions and existing fallback positions, would lead to the property having a floor space of 458.52sqm. This increase in volume from the original building would amount to an approximate 224.3% increase. The appellant has not disputed these figures. 6. However, the assessment on whether a development would result in a disproportionate addition should not solely rest on a numerical calculation. The Framework requires me to have regard to the size of the original building when assessing whether any addition would be disproportionate regardless of any subsequent extensions that have taken place or theoretical extensions in the future. The Framework does not detail what a disproportionate addition means, nor sets out any volumetric or other standards. Assessing proportionality is therefore an objective test based on size. 7. The proposed extension would significantly increase the bulk, massing and depth of the dwelling, resulting in a large projecting single storey front extension with a pitched roof over. This would be a sizeable addition to the building. When the proposed extension is considered against other extensions undertaken to the appeal property, this would result in a disproportionate number of additions to the building, thus creating a dwelling that has been disproportionately extended beyond its original form. 8. In assessing the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt, I am mindful that the appeal property is partially screened from the road by high hedging and mature boundary vegetation. However, given its height, the building would be visible in some views where it would be discernible. Consequently, I conclude that the proposal would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt, albeit in the context of the scale of the proposal and location in a residential area. 9. As such I find that the scheme would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt, which is by definition harmful. It would therefore be contrary to Policy GBR1 of the Local Plan and the Framework. Substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Character and appearance 10. No 2A is set back from the highway and is screened in part by mature vegetation to its frontage. Nevertheless, views of the appeal site can be seen when travelling along Raffin Park and when viewed at its access point. The proposed development would consist of a single storey extension with a pitched roof over that would project a substantial amount further forward. 11. Although located within a sizeable plot and with features and materials designed to achieve subservience and integration, the scale, bulk and roof levels of the proposed extension would visually compete with the host dwelling and would dominate its front elevation. Furthermore, the position and height of the extension would undermine the visual gap currently seen in this location when viewed from Appeal Decision 6002962 3 Raffin Park. It is contended that landscape screening on the northern boundary could lessen the visual impact of the proposed development. This matter could be addressed through the imposition of an appropriately worded planning condition. However, whilst further landscaping may limit views of the building somewhat, I am not of the view that this mechanism would mitigate its effect sufficiently. 12. Therefore, the proposed development would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. It would therefore be contrary to Policies VILL2, HOU11 and DES4 of the Local Plan together with the Framework. Together these policies seek to encourage development which is of a high standard of design and of a size, scale, mass and form which reflects the character and appearance of the dwelling and the area. Other considerations 13. The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Harm to the character and appearance of the dwelling and the wider area would also arise. The Framework dictates that harm to the Green Belt should be given substantial weight and that 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. 14. The appeal property benefits from a prior approval notice (Council reference 3/25/0469/PNHH). This was granted in accordance with Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the General Permitted Development Order for an 8-metre single storey rear extension in April 2025. This extension which would amount to 95.8m2 can be considered to represent a fallback position. I accept that there is a greater than theoretical possibility that the fallback scheme might take place were the appeal to be dismissed. It therefore forms a consideration in this case. Its relevance to my determination of this appeal is the weight to be attached to this fallback position. 15. The appellant asserts that the acceptance of the fallback scheme indicates that any assessment of scale and disproportionality, bulk and mass must take account of this approval. However, notwithstanding the scale, size and mass of the development permitted by the fallback position, it differs from the appeal scheme in that it would be contained within the rear garden of the appeal property. Such an extension would not be unusual at the rear of a property and would be considerably less visible than an extension to its front. Whilst the two schemes would be broadly comparable in size, the main difference would be the overall height of the proposed front extension and its location to the front. 16. The appellant has suggested that they would be willing to accept planning conditions limiting second phase enlargement and removal of further permitted development rights. The Council raise concern that there would be nothing to prevent the rear extension being built under the terms of the prior approval before the appeal scheme is implemented. If this occurred, then the effect on openness would be exacerbated. In my consideration of this matter, I also find that these conditions would not take effect until any permission for the appeal scheme was implemented. As such, there would be no limit on the development of both schemes were I to allow the appeal on this basis. This outcome could only be achieved by means of a planning obligation and no obligation to this effect has been provided. Overall and taking all of the above factors into account, this fallback position carries limited weight in favour of the proposal. Appeal Decision 6002962 4 17. The personal circumstances of the appellant and their family are acknowledged, including that it would lead to a design that would more appropriately suit the health needs of the residents of the appeal property. In considering this matter, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in the Equality Act 2010, which requires me to consider the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. Protected characteristics include a person’s age and disability. I have also had due regard to the European Convention on Human Rights as set out in Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998. 18. In this regard, the above exercise must be weighed against my conclusion on the main issues. I am sympathetic to the needs of the appellant and their family. However, I am not persuaded from the information before me, that the appeal proposal represents the only option by which necessary additional living accommodation could be achieved by the appellant. In this case, and for the reasons set out, a refusal of planning permission is a proportionate and necessary approach to the legitimate aim of ensuring that substantial harm is not caused to the Green Belt through inappropriate development, and the effect to the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, while I acknowledge the personal circumstances of the appellant, I conclude that these are not matters which outweigh the harm that is caused by the development. 19. Other benefits forwarded by the appellants include strengthening of energy efficiency and longevity measures within the building and the economic investment within the local built environment. Given the relatively small scale of the proposal in this context, any such benefits do not offer strong support for the proposed development. I attach limited weight in favour of these considerations. 20. These other considerations attract limited weight overall. They would not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, or the character and appearance of the area overall. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist. Other Matter 21. I note that the appellant received pre application advice from the Council indicating a potentially favourable outcome for the proposal. However, the Council is not duty bound to accept such advice and consequently I do not afford this matter more than limited weight. Conclusion 22. The proposal conflicts with the Development plan and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, to indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. K Winnard INSPECTOR