Green Belt - Extension Refusal What Now?

[Littlemiss79]

Evening all I wonder if someone can advise, I am new to all this so apologies in advance for any lack of knowledge. 

Basically we live in a green belt area, our house has previously been extended by the previous owner. We recently submitted an application to build a single storey extension on the back of our house. I have posted a floorplan below just to give you a bit of an idea of what we wanted to achieve. Just to note our garden is land locked so actually doesn't overlook anyone and cannot be seen from public view.

Currently we have a utility room that juts out from the back of the house, to the right of this is just decking and we wanted to remove this and build right across the back of the house instead. Unfortunately the Local Planners have refused saying that it ruins the "openness of the green belt" and it is disproportionate to the original size of the building (bearing in mind that it was previously extended) so the new proposed extension would take the house to 117%. They also took into account a garage that is separate from our house and used this as part of the 117%.  At the moment our choices as laid out by our architects are that we could go for PD up to 3 metres or prior notification up to 6m both being on the back of the original building (side where the kitchen/breakfast room is). The 3 metre isn't an option for us as the space it would provide isn't really sufficient. My husband is wondering if we were to remove the garage (this is 25sqm in size and is viewable from the road) and give back to the "openness" of the green belt what are the chances of the local planners letting us 'use' this space to add on to the back of the house? Has anyone done this before and been successful? 
Would really appreciate any feedback, whether on what I have asked above or even if anyone has any other ideas of what we might be able to do to achieve this space? 

Thank you. 

[MikeSharp01]

Welcome to the forum.

 

You perhaps need to look at local custom and practice, has anybody done the swap, garage for dwelling elsewhere - I think this should be possible. Round here, Sevenoaks, I am confident it would be because if they are counting it as part of house then logically it must be equivalent. Which taken to extremes would mean you could knock down both and build new against the same area. The only thing that worries / interests me is the 117% would they accept only to 100% overall or could you get up to, for instance, 110%? Again what is the local plan saying, not sure these apply any more anyway, and what has been the practice. Are there any places in the area where a complete 'knock down and start again' has been given permission for more area than the sum of the previous parts? Finally have a look at what is coming down the track in terms of planning changes that may allow it in the medium term.

[bassanclan]

What would be the percentage if you built the 6m extension?

[MikeGrahamT21]

When was the original extension done? This may have been your one free ticket to PD.

 

I think in this case it would be ideal to setup a meeting between yourselves, your architect and the planning department to get a feeling of what may be acceptable, otherwise you are just going to be blindly guessing and spending more money on plan changes.

[Johnnyt]

The planners are wrong.

 

They cannot use impact on openness to refuse your application.

The latest NPPF para 149 (c) allows

"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;"

 

There in no mention of openness in this exception, same  limited infilling in villages and for agricultural buildings.

 

The following is taken directly from the Inspector's decision letter on my appeal

 

In a recent court case( Lee Valley), it was found that where development is considered to be ‘not inappropriate’ applying paragraphs 89 or 90 of the Framework, it should not be regarded as harmful either to the openness of the Green Belt or to the purposes of including land in the Green Belt. In other words, the impact of a proposal on openness is implicitly taken into account in the exceptions set out in the Framework unless there is a specific requirement to consider the matter. The Council has pointed out that the above case related to agricultural rather than residential development. Nevertheless it sets out principles with regard to the issue of openness. Although the previous Inspector concluded that the development would harm openness this pre-dated the case law. Therefore, for the above reasons, there is no need for me to consider openness as a separate issue.

 

I attach another appeal regarding extensions in the green belt which may be helpful, and here once more openness is not a factor.

 

3272415 -Appeal Decision.pdf

 

[Bramco]

1 hour ago, Johnnyt said:

They cannot use impact on openness to refuse your application.

 

Agree wholeheartedly - we had the same in our appeal which was for infill in the green belt.  All the 5 exceptions for permission in the GB are understood not to affect openness as they are allowed, so openness is not an issue.

 

However .......

 

Extensions are limited to about 50% of the 'original' structure. The 50% isn't written down anywhere and I think might be something based on case law but it seems to be the rule of thumb.

 

Your extension to the back isn't part of the original (iiuc?), so that takes up some of your 50%.   They seem to have also taken into account the garage which brings you up over 100% and therefore not permissible.

 

You ask an interesting question about giving up the garage.  This might be the way to do it.

 

Our neighbours were recently refused a full planning application to build a freestanding 3 bay car porty thing at the back of their bungalow.  While the planner said 'no'  due to the same rule your planners are referencing they did point out that what the neighbour wanted to build could be built under PD. They didn't explicitly say that but the letter pointed the neighbours to the PD legislation. PD legislation allows you to build outbuildings for the amenity of the property, so a garage, swimming pool etc. where the footprint of the built up area doesn't exceed 50% of the curtilage.

 

So while the NPPF says one thing, PD legislation says another.  Green Belt is the only 'special' type of area which doesn't require a full application, all the others do, e.g. Norfolk Broads, AONB etc.

 

So I would tell the planners that you are going to knock down the garage, make the plans for the extension fit in the 50% rule.  A parish councillor in our village had something like 75% extension approved and I bet you can find more examples like that.  Hopefully this will then be accepted within the NPPF rule on extensions in the GB.

 

Then, when they have passed the application, rebuild the garage under PD legislation.   Of course, once the application is passed, who will know if you actually knocked the garage down and rebuilt it, or if the new one just happens to be a perfect replica of the old one   ;-D

 

As with all these things don't tell them anything they don't need to know - they use it against you...    So when you talk about the garage and knocking it down use the outside measurements - make it sound bigger than it is. When talking about the extension use the internal measurements - you want it to appear smaller than it is.  And build it a bit bigger, no-one will ever check.  10% tolerance due to materials etc.

 

Good luck and let us know what happens

 

Simon

[Littlemiss79]

Thank you all for your comments, we have had a good read and it's given us some thoughts. We are thinking of maybe submitting a new application asking permission to knock down the existing garage and utility room and using the floor area these took up as an addition onto the back of the house in effect creating what we originally applied for without actually asking to increase the size of our property - if that makes sense! Their refusal of our original application because of "openness" surely would then fall flat because we are removing the garage that can be seen from the road and giving back to the green belt!

[Gerhardt]

On 03/01/2022 at 20:40, Littlemiss79 said:

to the right of this is just decking and we

You want to read the attached case law. Very relevant to your question.

Tandridge.pdf

[Jilly]

Is it worth appealing first?

[Big Jimbo]

I feel your pain. The way i managed to get my permission was to use all my pd rights on a piece of paper. 3sq m porch on front, half the width of the house on the left hand side, and half the width on the right hand side. 8m extension to the rear. also pointed out that i could cover 50% of my land with buildings, so if they wanted to be knobs, i could make the site look much worse. They actually used my pd rights as special circumstances to pass what i wanted. i am also in the greenbelt, and eventually ended up with permission to go from 600sq ft to 3000sq ft.

[ToughButterCup]

Could you please post the complete text of the Decision Notice? It would help us give a more focused answer.

[Littlemiss79]

Hi all....tonight we've sent an email (our architect is going to approve it 1st) to the planning officer to request an indication of whether we were to knock down our garage (which can be seen from the road) and old utility room (combined floor space of 40sqm) and instead using this space to build the single storey on the back of the house. This way we aren't asking for additional space just moving it. Plus we would then be giving back to the green belt! 

 

As requested this was the official decision notice .......

"The proposed development would constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt
and additional harm would result from loss of openness. The harm by reason of its
inappropriateness and loss of openness is not clearly outweighed by other considerations, nor
have very special circumstances been demonstrated. The proposal is therefore contrary to
Policy GBR1 of the East Herts District Plan 2018 and the National Planning Policy Framework"