East Dorset District Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

In Green Belt planning cases, the question is whether proposed development is inappropriate under the applicable policy. Inappropriate development is inherently harmful to the Green Belt, but the assessment remains one of applying the policy to the facts. A guideline based on the size of the original building is relevant but is not a rigid threshold. A decision-maker may consider how far a proposal exceeds a guideline, including a guideline expressed as an absolute floor-area figure. The withdrawal of an earlier policy permitting extensions up to 50 per cent of the existing building does not mean that extensions above 50 per cent are automatically inappropriate. The decision-maker must apply the operative policy criteria, including impact on openness, height, bulk and whether the extension dominates the existing dwelling.

A bungalow in the Green Belt had been rebuilt in 1994 and later enlarged by a conservatory. The local planning authority refused retrospective permission and issued an enforcement notice. On appeal, the Inspector allowed both appeals and granted planning permission.

The Council challenged the Inspector’s decisions under sections 288 and 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act. It argued that the Inspector had misunderstood or failed to apply Policy GB3 and the relevant guidance in Planning Policy Guidance Note 2, particularly the comparisons based on the original 1980 building, the 50 per cent guideline and the 140 square metre figure.

1. Outcome. Permission to appeal under section 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act was refused. The section 288 appeal was dismissed. The Council was ordered to pay costs of £4,231.
2. Relevant legal framework. Under PPG2, an extension in the Green Belt is not inappropriate only if it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The original building was the bungalow existing when the Green Belt was designated in 1980. Inappropriate development is harmful by definition, although additional harm, including loss of openness, must also be considered: Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council v Secretary of State of Environment of Transport and Regions [2002] JPL 1509.
3. Construction of Policy GB3. The operative policy was paragraph 6.104 of the local plan. Its criteria required consideration of whether the development materially changed the dwelling’s impact on Green Belt openness and whether the extension dominated the existing dwelling. The supporting text replaced an earlier policy under which extensions of less than 50 per cent of the existing building were generally treated as acceptable. It did not establish a new rule that extensions of 50 per cent or more were automatically inappropriate.
4. Guidelines. The paragraph 6.102 figures were general guidelines, using the 1980 building as the comparator. The 140 square metre figure could remain relevant even where the proposal exceeded it. A decision-maker was entitled to consider how far the proposal exceeded the guideline. The Inspector therefore acted lawfully in taking account both of the 19 per cent excess over 140 square metres and the substantially greater increase over the 1980 bungalow.
5. The Inspector’s conclusions that the conservatory did not materially alter openness and did not dominate the dwelling were matters of planning judgment which were not challenged. His decision disclosed no error of law.

The judgment itself records no prior court decision in the same proceedings. The Inspector’s decision was challenged directly by the Council under sections 288 and 289 of the Town and Country Planning Act.