Appeal 3276403

The appeal is dismissed.

The Government published a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in July 2021. All references to the Framework in this decision relate to the updated document.

For clarity, I have used the description of development that has been provided on the appellants’ appeal form.

I acknowledge that there is a typographical error in the appellants’ statement of case. The error is found in the fourth paragraph of the section entitled ‘Mitigation of impact on Green Belt’. The appellant has asked that the word ‘would’, that is contained within the second sentence of the same paragraph, to be replaced with the words ‘would not.’ I have proceeded accordingly.

The main issue is whether the proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Metropolitan Green Belt (the Green Belt), and if inappropriate development, the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt, and whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, or any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

The appeal site is located in the Green Belt and is accessed via a gated and sloped driveway that leads down from [site address] . ‘ [site address] ’ is found at the end of the driveway and is a residential dwelling that faces onto the two-storey appeal building, that has an external ‘log-store’ to the rear, and a detached double garage adjacent to its eastern elevation. To the west of the appeal building there is a raised area of land.

The proposal is to demolish the existing double garage and to remove the ‘log-store’ to the rear of the two-storey appeal building. The appeal building would be used as an annex that would be ancillary to the host dwelling.

The Framework sets out clearly in Paragraphs 147-151 that unless an exception can be demonstrated that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except where very special circumstances exist. In this case Paragraph 149 (c) applies, which says that exceptions include: ‘the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces’.

The appellant argues that in addition to the two separate permissions1 for buildings at ‘ [site address] ’, at some point prior to 2017 there was a timber-boarded outbuilding on the raised area of land that is no longer standing.

Moreover, notwithstanding the Council’s assertion that the 1964/5 permissions were iterations of the same garage, that the demolition of the double garage and the floor-space of the timber-boarded outbuilding, either separately or in combination with the floor-space of the ‘log-store’ once demolished, can be off-set against the floor-space of the appeal building in order to meet the requirements of Paragraph 149 (c) of the Framework.

However, from the limited and vintage evidence before me, the gathering of which falls squarely with the appellant, I cannot be certain of the floorspace size of the timber-boarded outbuilding, which in any event the main parties agree was demolished prior to the construction of the appeal building.

Therefore, in spite of the appellant’s concerns for the precise footprint size of the appeal dwelling, or even if both the ‘log-store’ and the double garage were to be demolished, the fact remains that the already constructed floorspace of the remaining appeal building would still be in excess of the Council’s 40m2 threshold limit for residential outbuildings in the Green Belt, as set out in the Sevenoaks District Council, ‘Development in the Green Belt’, Supplementary Planning Document, 2015 (SPD).

I conclude therefore, and in the planning judgement, that the development would be inappropriate development in the green belt. 1 TH/5/64/604 and TH/5/604A

Paragraph 137 of the Framework indicates that openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. Therefore, while I acknowledge that the ‘log-store’ and the double garage would be demolished, and as a consequence that there would be a lesser number of buildings at ‘ [site address] ’, the appeal building is nevertheless a two-storey structure of some considerable height and mass. Indeed, the bulky building includes a pitched-roof and dormer, high level fenestration, roof lights and tall metal doors to the front. Additional landscaping would not provide satisfactory mitigation. As such, the building is jarring in appearance and has a substantial visual impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

It follows then, that the proposal is inappropriate development that would materially harm the openness of the Green Belt.

Paragraph 148 of the Framework requires that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. Moreover, very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations to justify the development.

The proposal would consolidate the built form at ‘ [site address] ’ and be sited lower than the former timber-boarded outbuilding. However, as the appeal building is a two-storey dwelling of some scale, I afford this very little weight. Moreover, given that the appeal building has already been constructed, I attribute minimal weight to the economic, social and environmental benefits of the proposal.

I have found that the proposal is inappropriate development that would erode the essential characteristics of the openness of the Green Belt. Furthermore, the substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm is not clearly outweighed by the other considerations sufficient to demonstrate that very special circumstances exist.

Accordingly, the proposal is contrary to Policy GB3 of the Sevenoaks District Council Allocations and Development Management Plan 2015, as supported by the SPD, and Paragraph 147 of the Framework, which says that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.