Proposed development is first floor front extension above garage area

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 May 2026 by P B Jarvis DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date:06 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008094 Fayre Oaks, Broad Lane, Tamworth-in-Arden, Warwickshire B94 5HX • 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 Dr Stephen Dawson against the decision of Stratford on Avon District Council. • The application Ref. is 25/03165/FUL. • The proposed development is first floor front extension above garage area. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for first floor front extension above garage area at Fayre Oaks, Broad Lane, Tamworth-in-Arden, Warwickshire B94 5HX in accordance with the terms of application ref: 25/03165/FUL and subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun within three years of the date of this decision 2) The permission hereby granted shall relate to the following plans: location plan (scale 1:1250), drawing no: 2024-309-002 (existing plans, elevations and OS plan) and 2024-309-003 (proposed plans, elevations and OS plan). 3) The materials to be used in the external surfaces of the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Main Issue 2. The main issue is • Whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies. Reasons 3. The appeal site lies on the northern side of Broad Lane within a row of dwellings which front the road. The site and surrounding area are located in the West Midlands Green Belt. The sizeable plot which is rectangular in shape contains a large detached two storey dwelling of modern design occupying much of the width of the plot but set back from the road frontage behind a parking and turning area located to the front of the dwelling. It has an integral garage to one side which Appeal Decision 6008094 2 projects forward of the main front elevation of the dwelling. Unlike the pitched roof over the main dwelling it has a flat roof with parapet edge. 4. Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of the listed exceptions apply. These include, at paragraph 154(c), 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. Policy CS10 of the of the Stratford on Avon District Core Strategy 2011-2031 (2016) (CS) states that a small-scale extension or alteration of a building are not inappropriate. The supporting text repeats the exceptions of paragraph 154 of the Framework. 5. The CS also includes ‘Development Management Considerations’ which set out how the policy is to be interpreted. They note that an extension to a building should not cause material (i.e. significant) harm to the openness and character of the Green Belt, noting that each scheme will raise specific issues. In assessing impact on openness and character it lists key factors, including amongst other things, that an extension to a building must not result in a building disproportionately larger compared to the original building, the cumulative effect taking account of previous development and visual impact. The Framework clarifies that the original building is that which existed on 1 July 1948 or if constructed after that date, as originally built. 6. The parties agree that taken together with previous extensions to the dwelling, the appeal proposal would result in a 57% increase in volume of the original dwelling. Neither CS Policy CS10 nor the Framework set out what is meant by ‘disproportionate additions’ and it is thus a matter of judgement having regard to the particular circumstances of the case. The previous additions added a single storey rear extension and first floor extension to the rear. 7. The appeal proposal would add a first floor with pitched roof over above the existing garage to the same height as the existing front gable projection with a ‘wrap around’ element to the side of the dwelling. This would leave a gap of around one metre to the side boundary. The Council suggests that the extension would not be ‘small scale’ however, this is not one of the tests within Framework paragraph 154(c) and thus in this respect the policy is not consistent with it. 8. In visual terms the proposed addition would be subservient and even when considered in combination with the previous extensions would result in extensions that would be in scale with the original dwelling. Furthermore, notwithstanding that the addition would be to the front of the dwelling, it would remain of a similar size to those within the row, a number of which have also been extended and include forward projecting elements. Nor would the proposal encroach further into the open area to the front of the site. 9. The Council refers to two appeal decisions relating to dwellings within the same group along Broad Lane. In an appeal relating to a first-floor front extension at Cherry Trees, a detached dwelling which adjoins the appeal site to the west, the Inspector found that a cumulative increase of 63% volume would not amount of disproportionate additions in that case.1The second appeal concerned various extensions to the semi-detached property Cambrian located towards the eastern 1 APP/J3720/D/22/3307388 Appeal Decision 6008094 3 end of the group of dwellings along Broad Lane. In that case the Inspector found the cumulative increase of 76.9% to amount to disproportionate additions2. 10. Having considered both the above appeals, it is clear that site specific circumstances were key to the Inspector’s findings in both, having regard to national and local policy whereby an assessment of disproportionality is to be considered primarily in the context of the size of the original dwelling. Beyond that the appeal schemes do not assist my assessment in this case. 11. The Council contends that the additional bulk introduced at first floor level and the reduction of the gap to the side of the dwelling on the appeal site and that on the neighbouring property would result in harm to the ‘visual openness’ of the site. However, given the above and that the remaining gap would be similar to others within the row, it would be acceptable in this regard. 12. Overall, for the reasons set out above, the proposal would not result in disproportionate additions to the original dwelling and would thus satisfy Framework paragraph 154(c). It would thus not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would comply with CS Policy CS10. Given my findings in this matter it is not necessary to consider further the effect on Green Belt openness. Conditions 13. In addition to the standard time condition, a condition to refer to the approved plans is necessary in the interests of clarity and a condition to require matching materials is necessary in the interests of the visual amenity of the area. Conclusion 14. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed. P B Jarvis INSPECTOR 2 APP/J3730/D/23/3322156