Appeal 3327504

The appeal is dismissed.

The development applied for has been carried out.

The main issues are: (i) Whether the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt; (ii) The effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt and the character and appearance of the area; (iii) If the development is inappropriate development, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to very special circumstances.

The appeal relates to a large ‘L’ shaped detached prefabricated building that is sited at the eastern end of [site address] ’s long rear garden area. No 29 is an end property in a small terrace of 5 dwellings that are situated adjacent to the Calder and [name] broad inland waterway. The surrounding area is in mixed use, with the [name] public house located on the opposite side of [address], and an industrial storage yard situated directly to the north. The appeal site also lies within the Green Belt.

Policy D 23 of the Wakefield Local Development Framework Development [name] 2009 (DPD) seeks to protect the Green Belt in Wakefield in line with national planning policy.

Paragraph 147 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The Framework further establishes that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, subject to a number of exceptions as set out in paragraph 149. One exception is 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.

The development is separated from the dwelling at No 29 by an extensive garden area. According to the Council’s uncontested measurements this is approximately 24 metres in distance. At the time of my site visit there was also a temporary board in place that blocked any access route from the garden to the development. Indeed, the development’s only openings are a set of double doors and a small window which do not front this garden area. They are positioned adjacent to the area of fencing that encloses the eastern end of the site, and a gateway that is accessed via the car parking area to the rear.

In light of the above, and the degree of separation and lack of a close physical relationship with the dwelling house, the development does not appear visually grouped with this building. As such, I am satisfied that it is not an extension or alteration to a dwelling for Green Belt purposes.

Accordingly, the development does not satisfy the exception (c) of paragraph 149 of the Framework and the exception relating to extensions or alterations to existing dwellings in DPD Policy D 23. The development does also not fall within any other exceptions stated in paragraph 149 of the Framework. As a result, it constitutes inappropriate development which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt.

Paragraph 137 of the Framework advises that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Openness is the absence of development and has both spatial and visual dimensions.

The footprint and volume of the development gives rise to a spatial loss of openness on the site as it results in development where the appellant’s photographs show that there was previously none.

I appreciate that the immediate context includes several sheds and outbuildings, most notably in the neighbouring storage yard. I also recognise that these buildings vary in size, scale and materials. Nonetheless, the appeal development sits approximately 1 metre above ground floor level, for flood protection purposes. The majority of its footprint also spans the full width of the plot, which in combination with its size, form and raised height appears as a bulky and conspicuous feature, particularly when viewed from the south. This impact is compounded by the use of dark grey cladding, which contrasts with the much lighter colour of neighbouring buildings, thereby drawing the eye, and further accentuating its visual prominence.

My site observations confirmed that the discordant nature of the development is prominent from a number of public vantage points, including from gaps in the vegetation along the nearby towpath and the adjacent car parking area to the south and east. It would also be clearly visible from the first-floor windows of several houses in the vicinity.

The development therefore reduces the openness of the Green Belt in both visual and spatial terms and causes harm to the character and appearance of the area. It thereby conflicts with Policy CS 10 of the Wakefield Local Development Framework Core Strategy 2009 and DPD Policy D 9. Amongst other matters, these seek high quality design and to raise the quality of the built environment, having regard to their distinctive local characteristics. It also does not accord with the design objectives of the Framework, as advised in Section 12. However, as I have found that the development is not an extension or alteration to a dwelling DPD Policy D 10 is not applicable.

[name] am mindful that both main parties have referred to permitted development rights in their evidence, there is no certificate of lawful development to this effect and no plans of such schemes before me. Therefore, given this uncertainty the appellant’s suggested fallback position only attracts very limited weight in the overall Green Belt balance.

It has also been put forward that the development does not have an overbearing or adverse impact on the residential amenity of the occupiers of neighbouring properties and that it retains a functional sized garden. However, the absence of harm in these respects is not a factor that weighs in the scheme’s favour.

The development is inappropriate development in the terms set out by the Framework and results in a harmful loss of openness to the Green Belt. The Framework requires me to give these collective harms substantial weight. I have also found the development to cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. The harm to the Green Belt and character and appearance of the area is not clearly outweighed by the other considerations above and, therefore, the very special circumstances required to justify a grant of planning permission have not been demonstrated. As a result, the proposal conflicts with DPD policy D 23 and with Section 13 of the Framework which seek to protect Green Belt land.

The appeal scheme consequently conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations worthy of sufficient weight, including the approach of the Framework, which would indicate a decision otherwise in accordance with it. As such, I conclude that the scheme is not sustainable development for which the Framework indicates there should be a presumption in favour. The appeal should therefore be dismissed.