Appeal 3283000

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: (i) Whether the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); (ii) The effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt; and (iii) If found to be inappropriate development, whether the 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 necessary to justify the proposal.

The appeal property is a detached two storey dwelling with a pool house connected by a link corridor and a separate coach house. The site is a sizeable plot located within the Green Belt. The surrounding area is characterised by a largely open and rural feel, with sparse examples of development nearby. The proposal would convert the poolhouse, replace the current link corridor, remove the conservatories present and create a new detached garage and outbuilding.

The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. While the construction of new buildings is inappropriate in the Green Belt, there are a limited number of exceptions, as detailed by paragraph 149 of the Framework. This includes at 149(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”. Original building is defined in the Framework as the building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was built originally. However, the concept of a disproportionate addition has not been defined.

Policy LP57(a) of the Kirklees Local Plan Strategy and Policies, February 2019 (the KLPSP), states that in the case of extensions within the Green Belt, these will only be permitted where the original building remains the dominant element in size and overall appearance. It continues that the cumulative impact of previous extensions and other associated buildings will be taken into account. While a disproportionate addition is not defined in the Framework, I conclude that this is a reasonable stance for the Council to take and reflects the aim of paragraph 149 of the Framework.

No plans have been provided showing the original dwelling. However, the Council has stated that this is the existing two-storey element and detached coach house, concluding that the conservatories, garage and pool house with enclosed link are later additions. This has not been disputed by the appellant and these elements were apparent on my site visit.

The new link corridor would largely replicate the footprint of the existing link and conservatories, which are to be removed. However, it would nonetheless introduce additional built form and, due to the positioning of the combined footprint in one larger element, would read as a more prominent feature. In addition to the introduction of the sizeable garage, even with the removal of current elements, the proposal overall would read as a sizeable addition. Combined with the earlier alterations and additions, it would fail to respect the proportions of the original dwelling, such that this would no longer appear dominant in size or appearance as a result, when viewing the property as a whole. As such, the proposal would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

Accordingly, the proposal does not fall within the exception at Paragraph 149(c) of the Framework. There is no suggestion that the proposal would meet any other exception listed in the Framework and it would therefore represent inappropriate development.

The Framework states that “the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.” It has been established that openness has both a spatial and visual aspect.

From a spatial perspective, the development would inevitably lead to a reduction in the openness of the Green Belt by introducing additional built form. However, it would also involve the demolition of certain elements. This would limit the overall increase in built form at the site, albeit that much of the replaced footprint would be combined into the singular imposing element of the proposed link.

From a visual perspective, the additional built form of the proposal would be highly visible within the site. However, much of this would be located to the rear and, in any event, due to the sizeable dimensions of the plot and the significant setback of the dwelling from [address], views from public vantage points would be limited. In addition, from the front the removal of the later hexagonal feature on the eastern elevation would be noticeable, leading to a clearer definition of the original dwelling from this viewpoint. 10.Therefore, having regard to the location of the site and the position of surrounding development, I conclude that the harm to the Green Belt arising from loss of openness would be limited.