Appeal 6000865

The appeal is dismissed and planning permission for the replacement of an existing extended bungalow with a detached two storey dwelling is refused.

An application for costs was made by [name] against the decision of Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council. This application is subject to a separate decision.

The application form states that the work for the appeal scheme had begun around December 2024, however it has not yet been completed. Consequently, I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis that the development has yet to be completed.

The appeal relates to an application for planning permission which was not determined by the Council within the prescribed period. I note that the Council would have refused planning permission should it have made a decision on the proposal. I have had regard to the parties’ submissions in establishing the main issues which I set out below.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies including the effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; 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 necessary to justify the proposal.

The appeal site is located close to the junction of [address] and [address] and is around 150 metres from the built up area of the settlement of [site address] . The appeal site once had a detached bungalow and still benefits from significant mature hedgerows which generally enclose the site.

The description of development in the application form states that the appeal scheme is for a replacement dwelling. In the evidence before me, the appellant has outlined that due to a storm which severely damaged the original bungalow on the appeal site a restoration/rebuild was begun. However, the appellant refers in their evidence to ‘a now demolished extended bungalow’. Nevertheless, given that the appellant has sought specific permission for a replacement dwelling, I have assessed the proposal on this basis rather than a new dwelling for planning purposes.

Paragraph 154(d) of the Framework outlines that the replacement of a building is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. Given that there is no definition as to what constitutes ‘materially larger’, it is a matter of planning judgement.

I am mindful of the judgement in the case of R (Howell) v Waveney District Council [2018] EWHC 3388 regarding a breach of a condition going to the heart of a permission renders the implementation of that permission unlawful.

Nevertheless, there is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the prior approval and permitted development schemes outlined in the evidence, had been implemented prior to the restoration/rebuild of the bungalow. Consequently, on the balance of probabilities, these schemes do not count as part of the baseline to which the appeal scheme is compared.

Consequently, based on the evidence before me, the appeal scheme would be, to my mind, materially larger than the baseline of the previously detached bungalow. I return to the matters of the prior approval and permitted development schemes later in my decision regarding very special circumstances. Thus, considering the baseline it would not benefit from the exception provided by paragraph 154(d).

Furthermore, paragraph 154(g) of the Framework relates to previously developed land (PDL). PDL is defined in Annex 2 of the Framework as land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it.

Paragraph 154(g) outlines that development in the Green Belt is not inappropriate if it constitutes limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (including a material change of use to residential or mixed use including residential), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), provided that it would not cause substantial harm on the openness of the Green Belt.

I am cognisant of the judgement relating to Dartford Borough Council v. Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2017] [name] 141. Given the previous dwelling on the site on the evidence before me, the appeal site could, in my planning judgement, be considered as PDL. There is no definition of ‘substantial harm’ for planning purposes. Consequently, it is a matter of planning judgement as to whether a development would result in substantial harm on the openness of the Green Belt when compared to existing development.

Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) sets out factors that can be taken into account when considering the openness of the Green Belt. It outlines that the openness of the Green Belt includes but is not limited to both spatial and visual aspects, duration and remediability and degree of activity1.

The appeal scheme would, in my planning judgement, result in a larger built form than the previously detached bungalow that was contained on the appeal site. Consequently, it would have more of an impact on openness of the Green Belt in spatial terms.

Regarding the visual aspect of the openness of the Green Belt, the appeal site is set back considerably from the road and is screened by mature hedgerow as well as vegetation along its boundary. Consequently, the appeal site has a relatively secluded character. Accordingly, the appeal scheme would not result in a significant effect on the visual aspect of the openness of the Green Belt.

Given all of the above, in my judgement, the appeal scheme would result in substantial harm to the spatial aspect of the openness of the Green Belt.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework provides further instances of not inappropriate development besides those referenced in paragraph 154. It states that 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 suitable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework and d) where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘[name] requirements set out in paragraphs 156-157 of the Framework.

The term ‘Grey Belt’ 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 contribute to any of the purposes (a), (b) or (d) in paragraph 143.

Paragraph 143(a) and (b) establish the purposes of Green Belt policy as to prevent unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas and prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another. I note reference to the appeal site being within the Broad Area 5 as outlined in the Solihull Strategic Green Belt Assessment Report 2016 (online version). However, given that the appeal site is generally contained by significant mature hedgerows, the existing built form adjacent to the appeal site as well as its proximity to the built-up area of [site address] , I consider that the appeal scheme would not contribute to the unrestricted sprawl of a large built- 1 Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 013 [name]: 64-[phone] up area and can be classed as PDL and/or other land for the purpose of the Grey Belt definition. Consequently, it follows that it would not result in the merging of neighbouring towns or fail to preserve the setting and special character of any historic towns as outlines in paragraph 143(d).

Consequently, the appeal site meets the criterion to be classed as Grey Belt.

Regarding paragraph 155 of the Framework, I have identified above that the appeal scheme would not undermine the purposes of the Green Belt in relation to paragraph 143(a),(b) or (d). In relation to paragraph 143(c), given the substantial mature border of the site, I consider that the appeal scheme would not result in encroachment into the countryside. Furthermore, given that the appeal site has previously had a dwelling on it, to my mind, it would not undermine the purpose outlined in paragraph 143(e) which relates to encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. Accordingly, part (a) of paragraph 155 is met.

The Council is unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, and it follows therefore that there is a demonstrable unmet need for residential development. Nevertheless, the appeal scheme is for a replacement dwelling and therefore would not result in a net gain of a dwelling and thus would not contribute to increasing the Council’s housing land supply. Consequently, in my planning judgement, it would not meet part (b) of paragraph 155 and thus would constitute inappropriate development.

Part (c) of paragraph 155 requires development to be sustainably located with respect to its approach to transport accessibility.

Policy P7 of the Solihull Local Plan 2013 (the SLP) outlines that new development should be focused in the most accessible locations and therefore should meet a number of criterion unless justified by local circumstances. The criterion outlined in the policy are that housing development should be within 800 metres walking distance of a primary school, doctor’s surgery and food shop offering fresh food as well as be within a 400m walking distance of a bus stop served by a commercial high frequency bus service to local and regional employment and retail centres amongst other things.

[site address] does not have all of the facilities required to benefit from support by Policy P7 of the SLP. Notwithstanding this, there is a bus stop located on [address] which is in a reasonable walking distance of the appeal site. However, I do acknowledge that there are limited footpaths and lighting on [address] and given the limited facilities in [site address] future occupants would likely be reliant upon private motor vehicles to access day to day facilities.

Nevertheless, I am cognisant of paragraph 89 of the Framework which highlights that opportunities for sustainable development may vary between urban and rural areas. Consequently, considering all of the above, including the distance from the appeal site to the bus stop and [site address] , as well as comments provided by the Highways Authority for a different scheme at the appeal site in February 2026, on balance it is, in my planning judgement, a relatively sustainable location given the access to the bus service

Additionally, sites such as the appeal site, which are physically well related to an existing settlement should be encouraged where suitable opportunities exist. Thus, in my planning judgement, the appeal scheme would comply with part (c) of paragraph 155 of the Framework and would be a suitable location for the proposal. It would also comply with Policies P7 and P5 of the SLP insofar as they seek to ensure developments are in suitable locations.

Part d) of Paragraph 155 references the [name] however, these rules only pertain to major housing development (any housing scheme of 10+ units or site area of 0.5ha or more). The appeal site is approximately 2.5ha according to the evidence before me and thus is above 0.5ha. Consequently, part d) of paragraph 155 of the Framework applies to the appeal scheme.

Therefore, given that the appeal scheme does not make an adequate contribution to affordable housing, improvements to local or national infrastructure nor the provision of new, or improvements to existing, green spaces that are accessible to the public, it does not comply with paragraphs 156 and 157 of the Framework and the ‘[name] are not met.

Consequently, whilst the appeal site is in the Grey belt and would, in my planning judgement, be a sustainable location for the proposal, it remains that it does not comply with all the relevant criterion outlined in paragraph 155 of the Framework nor the exceptions outlined in paragraphs 154(d) and 154(g). Therefore, the appeal scheme would be inappropriate in the Green Belt. Accordingly, it would not comply with Policy P17 of the SLP insofar as it seeks to ensure that development in the Green Belt is not inappropriate

The appeal scheme would result in a relatively large scale dwellinghouse, nevertheless, the dwellings in the surrounding area are also relatively large in terms of scale and massing as well as being sited on large plots. Consequently, the proposed development would not result in an incongruous feature given the large plot size of the appeal site.

Furthermore, there is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the appeal scheme would result in unacceptable harm to the existing natural and rural environment due to its design. Especially given that I have identified above, the large plots that dwellings on [address] are sited upon and considering the comments provided by the [name] who were consulted on the scheme.

Moreover, the overall design including double timber box sash windows would, to my mind, prevent the development from urbanising [address] and the surrounding area to a harmful extent.

Therefore, based on the evidence before me, the appeal scheme would comply with Policies P5 and P15 (online version) of the SLP insofar as they seek to ensure that development maintains the character and local distinctiveness of the surrounding area.

A fall-back position regarding permitted development and prior approval extensions has been highlighted in the evidence before me. The appellant has referred to the appeal scheme resulting in around a 5% reduction of built form compared to, when considered together, the original bungalow, permitted development rights and prior approvals.

I am mindful of the following legal judgements and how they relate to a fall-back position: Mansell v Tonbridge and [name] & others (2017) [name] 1314, Gambone v SSCLG [2014] EWHC 952 (Admin) as well as Schneck v SSHCLG & [name] (2022) EWHC 3335 (Admin).

There is limited substantive evidence before me regarding whether the bungalow replaced a significantly larger country house on the site in approximately the 1960s/70s. Consequently, it has not been adequately demonstrated that a larger structure than the previous bungalow is the baseline to which the appeal scheme should be compared.

Considering all the evidence, there is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the original bungalow on the site has not been demolished in its entirety. Consequently, it follows that in my planning judgement, given the demolition of the original bungalow as referenced in the evidence before me, there is no real prospect of the implementation of the fallback schemes. Accordingly, in my planning judgement, there is not a greater than theoretical prospect of the alternative development taking place.

I acknowledge that the appeal scheme would provide a large dwelling house and therefore add to the mix of housing type in the Borough as well as provide employment opportunities to the local building trade during its construction. Additionally, that it would be of a sustainable design, although there is limited substantive evidence before me to demonstrate the extent of the sustainability benefits. Nevertheless, these benefits would be limited given the appeal scheme would be for one dwelling.

A lack of harm regarding the living conditions of neighbouring occupants is a neutral factor in my determination of this appeal.

The appeal scheme would replace a dwelling and therefore not result in a net gain of housing. Consequently, it would not contribute to the housing supply of the Borough.

The appeal scheme would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Paragraph 153 of the Framework advises that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. It also indicates that inappropriate development is by definition harmful and should not be approved except in ‘very special circumstances’. These will not exist unless potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

I have found the appeal scheme would not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area however it remains that it would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and harm the openness of the Green Belt.

Weighed against that are the other considerations set out above. However, I find that the other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed and planning permission refused.