East Hampshire District Council v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government

J U D G M E N T

MR JUSTICE MITTING: The local planning authority for East Hampshire, East Hampshire District Council, appeals under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the decision on appeal of Mr Martin Andrews, allowing an appeal by a house owner and developer against the refusal of the local planning authority to permit development at Tiplen Green Farm House, Clanfield. The appeal decision is dated 26 June 2006.

Tiplen Green Farm House was originally two small cottages. It is in open countryside outside the village of Clanfield. In 1993 planning permission was given to amalgamate the two cottages and expand the floorspace of what would then become a single building. The house owners applied for planning permission to extend the building further to the rear by adding a two-storey rear extension. The number of bedrooms was not to increase, although the facilities at first-floor level would obviously be significantly enhanced. The number of living rooms on the ground floor was also not to increase, but the principal living room would have added to it a "snug", and the dining room would be extended.

Permission was refused on 11 February 2005 on the ground that:

"The proposal represents an unacceptable cumulative addition to this property, which has been extended in the past, representing a 68 per cent increase in floor area. This enlargement and extension itself changes the scale and character of the property and affects the successful retention of a range of dwellings of varying sizes in an area where new dwellings are not permitted contrary to Policy H16 of the East Hampshire District Local Plan: First Review."

Subsequent to that decision the policy was revised and updated, but was, in relation to this appeal, to all intents and purposes the same. The relevant policy was H16.2, which provided:

"Where the original dwelling had a total floorspace between 67 sq m and 266 sq m inclusive, the resultant dwelling size does not exceed the original dwelling size by more than 50 per cent. Subsequent extensions which would result in an increase in floorspace beyond this limit will not be permitted."

The prohibition was accordingly absolute and unqualified. The objectives to be served by this policy were set out in the explanatory notes in the development plan, in particular paragraphs 5.182, 5.183 and 5.184, the relevant parts of which provide:

"It is important to maintain the variety of existing dwelling types and sizes in accordan