Appeal 6000671

The appeal is dismissed.

I observed at the time of the site visit that works had commenced and the proposed development was partially constructed. However, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans and details.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the development plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), including the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • 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 proposal.

The appeal site comprises a large, detached house, set within a substantial plot, located along a private track in the open countryside. The site includes a dilapidated detached garage, a detached store / workshop and a partially constructed aviary building for housing peacocks.

The site is within the Green Belt. The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, with the essential characteristics of the Green Belt being their openness and permanence. The Framework goes on to state 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 154. Relevant exceptions include paragraph 154(d), the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces, and paragraph 154(g) which includes the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Policy GP2 of the Rugby Borough Council Local Plan 2011-2031 adopted June 2019 (the LP) sets out that development in the Green Belt will be allowed only where it accords with national policy.

The proposal would replace the existing dilapidated detached garage and store / workshop. According to the appellant these buildings have a total built footprint of 73m2. The appellant suggests that the replacement building would have a total built footprint of 103m2, which amounts to a 40% increase over and above the size of the original buildings. However, the height of the proposed building would be significantly taller than the modest height of the existing garage and store / workshop. Indeed, the mass and scale of the proposed building, with a vast roof space, would be materially larger than the existing buildings to be replaced. Consequently, the proposed new building would not meet paragraph 154(d) of the Framework.

In respect of paragraph 154(g) of the Framework, as a residential garden, which is not located in a built-up area, the replacement of the existing detached garage and store / workshop would comprise the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land. Even so, for it to benefit from the provisions of paragraph 154(g), it must also not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

Paragraph 142 of the Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Paragraph 153 of the Framework further states that when considering any planning application, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness.

Located down a track leading from [site address] , with planting on the boundaries, views of the proposed building from public vantage points would be restricted. However, due to the size and height of the replacement building, views of it would be possible from [site address] . As such, although the proposed building would be viewed within the context of the existing house, as well as neighbouring properties, it would nonetheless be noticeable within the landscape. Also, given the additional bulk and mass of the replacement building, including the expansive roof space, there would be additional impact upon the spatial openness of the Green Belt. As a result, there would be substantial harm to openness. Accordingly, the proposed development would not meet the exception set out in paragraph 154(g) of the Framework.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework states that development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where all of the following apply: a) the development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan; b) there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed; c) the development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework; and d) where applicable, the development would meet the [name] requirements set out in the Framework.

Grey belt land is defined in the Framework as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and / or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to three of the five purposes of Green Belt, as set out in the Framework. That is a) to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; b) to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another; and d) to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns.

Even if I were to find that the site was grey belt land, there is no substantiated evidence before me that there is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed, as required by paragraph 155b) of the Framework. As such, it does not comply with paragraph 155 of the Framework.

For the above reasons, the proposal would not meet the exceptions listed in paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework. It would therefore be inappropriate development, which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. There would also be harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

The Framework states that ‘very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the development, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The proposed building would be largely used as safe accommodation and food storage for peacocks, as well as secure storage space for a ride on lawn mower and tools. It would replace existing dilapidated buildings, and no objections are raised with the proposed facing materials.

The evidence suggests that the height of any cage within the building needs to be adequate to ensure that the birds don’t hit their heads when flying. However, the height of the proposed building would significantly exceed the suggested minimum height for a peacock cage. In addition, with one peacock and four hens, the proposed floorspace of the aviary element, at 59m2 would be larger than the suggested guidance of 50m2. Therefore, the weight I can attribute to the benefits of the appeal scheme is tempered as I am not persuaded that safe accommodation for the peacocks could not be achieved by a less harmful building. In these circumstances, the benefits attract modest weight in favour of the proposal.

The proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt which in line with Paragraph 153 of the Framework is harmful by definition. The appeal proposal would also reduce the openness of the Green Belt which also amounts to harm and carries substantial weight.

I have given some weight to the other considerations in favour of the proposal, as set out above. However, they do not clearly outweigh the harm arising from the proposal. Consequently, I conclude that the ‘very special circumstances’ necessary to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt do not exist. The development would thus conflict with the Green Belt protection aims of the Framework. It also conflicts with Policy GP2 of the LP.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan read as a whole. It has not been demonstrated that there are any material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.