Demolition of existing garage and outbuildings, proposed side extension, new first floor over and single storey rear extension. Internal and external alterations

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 June 2026 by L Clark MSc MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 3rd July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009301 1 Gypsy Lane, Great Amwell, Hertfordshire SG12 9RL • 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 Mr Paul Stuart against the decision of East Hertfordshire District Council. • The application Ref is 3/25/1892/HH. • The development proposed is described as demolition of existing garage and outbuildings, proposed side extension, new first floor over and single storey rear extension. Internal and external alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure and Preliminary Matter 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal scheme. The description for which set out above is taken from the application form. This differs from the decision notice which includes more detail about the external alterations. My use of the original has not changed anything fundamental nor prejudiced the ability of any party to make their case. Main Issues 3. The main issues are a) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; its effect on b) the openness of the Green Belt; and c) the character and appearance of the area; and d) if the scheme would be inappropriate development, 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 for the Recommendation Inappropriate Development 4. Policy GBR1 of the East Herts District Plan 2018 (LP) defers to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) for development in the Green Belt. The fundamental aim thereof is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless an exception applies. One of which 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. The Framework does not define disproportionate which is a matter of judgement based on the evidence. Appeal Decision 6009301 https://www.gov.uk/planning -inspectorate 2 5. The appeal property is a 1.5 storey vacant and extended dwelling in a large plot. The Council states that the footprint of the proposal would be 137.2% larger than the original dwelling, its total floorspace would be 178.3% more and there would be an increase of 250% in volume. These figures indicate a substantial increase in size. The appellant has not provided any calculations. The enlargement of a building can be more than a product of its area, internal floor space or volume. However, even looking at the appeal scheme in the physical sense, it would be undeniably large with a sprawling rear extension that would almost double the building’s original depth, with additional bulk added to the first floor. 6. The proposals would therefore represent disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building such that they would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This would conflict with the Framework’s position on extensions in the Green Belt and be harmful by definition thereto. It would also therefore conflict with Policy GBR1 of the LP. Openness 7. One of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt is its openness which, it has been established, can have a visual and spatial aspect. The latter can be taken to mean the absence of built form. The proposal would be mainly screened from wider views by mature landscaping and would not extend outside of the existing site and therefore the effect on the visual aspect would be limited. Nevertheless, the works would take up substantial space and would have an increased bulk in places where there was previously no development. It would therefore, unavoidably, reduce the spatial aspect of the Green Belt’s openness. This would be in further conflict with the position of Policy GBR1 of the LP and the aims of the Framework in keeping land in the Green Belt permanently open. Character and Appearance 8. The appeal property is a detached dwelling set within a particularly large plot with a garden to the rear and side. It is set back from Gypsy Lane, and the site is mainly bordered by mature trees and fencing. There are therefore only glimpses of the property from around the site. There are a broad mix of housing types along Gypsy Lane, but they are generally of a large size and set back from the roadside. 9. The proposal would substantially increase the size of the dwelling by adding additional floorspace at first floor level and extensions to the side and rear. The appearance of the dwelling would be altered entirely and exude a deliberately more contemporary feel including tall glazing on a gable frontage and composite board cladding. That being said, there is no strict uniformity between the dwellings on Gypsy Lane, and the dwelling would still benefit from a large garden with ample space surrounding. The property would still be set back from the roadside and would not extend any further forwards than the existing arrangement. 10. The alterations would undoubtedly make the dwelling much larger, but they would comfortably assimilate into the surrounding area which is characterised by large dwellings of differing designs within good sized plots. Policy HOU11 states that extensions should generally appear as subservient. I agree that the proposed alterations would not be subservient but, in this instance, for the reasons set out above, they would be appropriate to the character of the area and setting of the existing dwelling and would therefore meet the aims of this policy in the round. Appeal Decision 6009301 https://www.gov.uk/planning -inspectorate 3 11. The proposal would therefore not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area and would comply with Policies DES4, HOU11 and VILL2 of the LP which are concerned with respecting character amongst other things. Other Considerations 12. The cited Lee Valley case was concerned with an agricultural building and therefore fell within a different exception set out in the Framework where disproportionality was not a deciding factor. What might be disproportionate is a matter of judgement based on the evidence. 13. Some of the permitted development fallback that has been advanced would need to be subject to prior approval, for which I cannot pre -empt the outcome. I can therefore only afford the suggested fallback position limited weight. The appeal process cannot be used to evolve a scheme and therefore any suggestions of amendments should be submitted to the Council and form a fresh proposal. 14. As the appeal property is vacant, there may be some benefits to development for future occupants and for its visual appearance and I afford this moderate weight. However, I remain to be convinced that the appeal scheme would be the only way of making the property habitable and secure and I have not objected to the design of the scheme. There may be some benefits in terms of energy efficiency but similarly it is unlikely the proposal would be the only way of achieving such. 15. There could be economic benefits whilst construction is taking place, but these would be for a short period and therefore worthy of limited weight. The living conditions of the occupiers of the closest neighbouring properties is not a contentious matter in the appeal and any lack of harm in that respect would be neutral. The same can be said for parking arrangements and ecology. Conclusion and Recommendation 16. The appeal scheme would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would also reduce its openness. My findings on the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the area would be a lack of harm and thus neutral. The other considerations I have investigated would be worthy of moderate weight taken together. Such that they would not be sufficient against the substantial weight that should be afforded to any harm to the Green Belt. It is therefore clear that the very special circumstances needed to justify the proposals do not exist. The scheme thus conflicts with the development plan and material considerations do not indicate a decision otherwise. I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. L Clark APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 17. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR