Single-storey rear extension to existing dwelling to form new kitchen

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 9 April 2026 by H Wilkinson BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 27 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005623 Quineys, Alfreds Well, Dodford, Worcestershire B61 9BB • 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 Ms N Whateley against the decision of Bromsgrove District Council. • The application Ref is 25/01347/FUL. • The development proposed is a single-storey rear extension to existing dwelling to form new kitchen. 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 site lies within the Green Belt. Paragraph 154 of the Framework explains that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt, unless it falls within the given list of exceptions. Exception (c) advises that the extension or alteration of a building would not be regarded as inappropriate development provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The Framework does not define what is meant by “disproportionate additions” beyond requiring a comparison between the original building, any subsequent extensions, and the scale of the proposed development. 4. Consistent with the national Green Belt policy objectives, Policy BDP4 of the Bromsgrove District Plan 2011-2030 (Local Plan) also sets out that the development of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate, except in certain circumstances. This includes extensions to existing residential dwellings up to a maximum of 40% increase of the original dwelling or increases up to a maximum Appeal Decision 6005623 2 total floor space of 140m² (‘original’ dwelling plus extension(s)) provided that this scale of development has no adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt. This is reiterated at Section 3.2 of the Council’s High Quality Design SPD (2019). 5. The policy approach in paragraph 154(c) of the Framework, together with Local Plan Policy BDP4.4(c), differs from the exception at paragraph 154(d) in that it does not rely on a ‘materially larger’ test, but instead requires an assessment of proportionality. Accordingly, my considerations have focused on whether the proposal would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. In this regard, the proposal is not comparable to the Hill View Farm appeal. 6. The appeal property has been subject to previous extension and enlargements. Moreover, there is agreement between the main parties that the size of the original building has already been increased by approximately 308%, representing a significant exceedance of the threshold set out in Local Plan Policy BDP4. Numerical increase aside, as a matter of planning judgement, I find that the proposal by virtue of its volume, massing and footprint, when taken in combination with the previous extensions, would amount to a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. The development would therefore constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful, and thus would conflict with the provisions of the Framework and Local Plan Policy BDP4. Openness of the Green Belt 7. The Framework identifies openness as an essential characteristic of the Green Belt, encompassing both visual and spatial dimensions. The proposal would be subordinate in design terms and would infill an area of hardstanding at the rear of the site. Whilst within the external parameters of the dwelling, the proposal would result in the loss of the undeveloped space to the rear of the property and would increase the overall volume and visual bulk of the existing dwelling, most notably at ground-floor level. In spatial terms, this would harm the openness of the Green Belt. Due to its rearward siting, the elevation of the property above the road, and the sloping nature of the land to the rear, the proposal would not be publicly visible or appreciable beyond the site. Consequently, from a visual perspective, the harm to openness would be limited. 8. Taken together, the spatial and visual aspects would result in a harmful loss of openness, albeit limited for the reasons outlined. This would conflict with the fundamental protection aims of the Framework and add to the harm arising from the proposal being inappropriate development. For the same reasons, the proposed development would fail to safeguard the countryside from encroachment, contrary to one of the specified purposes of including land within the Green Belt. Other Considerations 9. General reference has been made to a potential fallback based on the exercise of permitted development rights. However, no detailed evidence has been put to me by the appellant to substantiate this alternative scheme. In the absence of any site- specific details or drawings, the evidence fails to demonstrate that there is a real prospect of the fallback being implemented, or whether it would result in equal or greater harm than the proposal before me. Therefore, while theoretically possible, Appeal Decision 6005623 3 the advanced fallback scenario is highly speculative and consequently does not attract weight in my considerations. 10. Even if I were to accept that the design of the proposal is of high quality and that it would not result in landscape harm, adversely affect the living conditions of nearby occupiers, harm biodiversity, or increase flood risk, the absence of harm in these respects is a neutral consideration and does not weigh in favour of the proposal. Furthermore, while I note that no objections have been raised by the Parish Council, consultees or residents, the lack of objection does not indicate that the development is acceptable in planning terms. 11. A condition removing permitted development rights, whilst limiting future development at this location would not overcome the demonstrable harm to the Green Belt arising from the appeal proposal. Green Belt Balance and Conclusion 12. The appeal proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which carries substantial weight. As well as harm by reason of inappropriateness, the proposal would cause a harmful loss of openness, albeit limited. For the reasons I have explained, the harm to the Green Belt would not be clearly outweighed by the other considerations. Consequently, the very special circumstances required to justify a grant of planning permission have not been demonstrated. 13. Having regard to the development plan as a whole and all other relevant material considerations, including the Framework, the appeal is dismissed. H Wilkinson INSPECTOR