Appeal 3357924

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

A new version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in December 2024. [name] have had regard to the revised national policy as a material consideration, planning decisions must still be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, the issues most relevant to the appeal remain unaffected by the revisions to the Framework. I am therefore satisfied that there is no requirement to seek further submissions on the revised Framework, and that no party would be disadvantaged by such a course of action.

The description of development provided in the application form has been amended to remove elements which do not constitute acts of development.

The main issues are: i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; ii) the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and iii) whether any 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 required to justify the development.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within the given list of exceptions. One exception (paragraph 154c)) is 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. Policy GP2 of the Rugby Borough Council Local Plan 2011 – 2031 [June 2019] (LP) is consistent with the Framework as it states that only where national policy on Green Belt allows will development be permitted.

The Framework does not define “disproportionate additions”. However, paragraph 7.19 of the [name] & [name] and Construction Supplementary Planning Document [February 2023] (SPD) considers that for extensions within the Green Belt, disproportionate additions would be typically around 25% of the original volume. I have had regard to this approach in assessing whether the proposal would result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building.

Given its relative proximity to the host dwelling, I consider the existing garage, and thereby the proposed double garage, as extensions to the original building for the purposes of paragraph 154c) of the Framework. Having regard to the appeal’s site planning history, it is evident that the original building has been extended significantly since it was converted to residential use.

Compared with the existing structure, the width and overall footprint of the proposed development would be increased significantly. As a result, the cumulative impact of the proposed garage extension, in conjunction with previous extensions and alterations to the host dwelling, would greatly increase the overall volume and size of the original building. When taken together, they would significantly exceed the 25% threshold set by the SPD, resulting in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The appellant states that an informal guide for disproportionate additions is 40%, but this is not supported by detailed evidence and does not align with the guidance set out in the SPD.

Given the above, I conclude that the proposal would therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and conflict with LP Policy GP2.

The proposed development, while maintaining a modest height, would result in a substantial increase in the mass and scale of the existing structure, extending onto what is currently an undeveloped, grassed area. The increased width of the extended garage would make the structure more prominent within the site and more visible from the public highway.

Although the appellant states that the development would be contained within the existing drive, in an infill area between the garage and the house, the increase in size and prominence of the garage would have a significant adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt, both in visual and spatial terms.

The proposal therefore would result in a loss of openness, thus adding to the Green Belt harm, and conflict with the Green Belt aims set out in LP Policy GP2.

Paragraph 153 of the Framework highlights that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, to which I ascribe substantial weight, and any other harm resulting from the development, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The Framework supports the provision of electric vehicle (EV) charging points, and I note that this aspect of the proposal could make a contribution to the Council’s commitment to reduce its CO2 emissions. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to explain why the provision of EV charging points necessitates the construction of the proposed structure. Furthermore, the proposed development could be built without the EV provision, and I have been presented with no mechanism which would guarantee its use as an EV charging facility. Accordingly, I attach very limited weight to this consideration.

The appellant has also stated that the proposal would not have any significant or adverse impact on the character and appearance of the countryside. I acknowledge that the design and materials of the proposed development would be sympathetic to its rural surroundings. However, the absence of harm in these respects does not weigh in favour of the proposed development. The appellant’s suggestion to incorporate bird and bat boxes into the design of the garage would be positive and could have been conditioned in the interests of biodiversity, had I been minded to recommend that the appeal should be allowed. I ascribe limited weight to this consideration.

The appeal scheme would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would reduce the openness of the Green Belt. I ascribe substantial weight to the harm caused to the Green Belt and openness. The absence of harm to the character and appearance of the area is a neutral consideration which does not weigh in favour of or against the development. When taken individually or cumulatively, the other considerations advanced in support of the scheme do not clearly outweigh the harm which would be caused to the Green Belt. In this instance, the very special circumstances that are necessary to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt do not exist.

As such, the development is contrary to LP Policy GP2 and the relevant parts of the Framework which seek to prevent inappropriate development in the Green Belt. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s recommendation and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.