Appeal 6000916

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.

The main issues are a) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt b) its effect on the openness of the Green Belt and c) if the scheme would be inappropriate development, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify it.

The Havering Local Plan 2021 (HLP) does not have a specific Green Belt Policy and Policy G2 of the London Plan 2021 (LP) defers to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) for the assessment of development in the Green Belt. Paragraph 154 (c) of the Framework explains that the extension or alteration of a building in the Green Belt might not be inappropriate development therein, provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. For the purposes of the Framework, the original building is as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after this date, as it was built originally .

The current building on the appeal site is not original. It is a replacement, and the previous incumbent was smaller. I have no conclusive information pertaining to how far, but the Council allude to it being a barn of around [address] metres (sqm) in floor area. A refused planning application, and subsequently dismissed appeal, to replace it sought a building of around 62sqm. A scheme ultimately approved resulted in the current situation on site and this appears to be in the region of 58sqm. The appellant makes the floor area of the existing building to be closer to 64sqm.

There is some disagreement between the main parties as to how far the situation proposed as part of this appeal scheme would grow the building over the pre-existing or original. The appellant suggests that the growth would amount to 103%, but in so doing refers to annotated measurements overlaid onto the existing building. The Council’s figures in terms of floor area and volume seem high, and they have not set out any evidence in support thereof. The appellant nonetheless suggests that the growth of the building would amount to a 66% increase in overall volume terms. Again, this is set out as how it would change from the existing and not original building.

An increase of 66% volume is not marginal. It is quite significant in and of itself and well north of half the building again. Taking into account the fact that what is now on site is not original, and that was smaller, the building would actually increase to a size greater than 66% over the original. How much greater it is unclear, but it would be more than materially north of 66%, taking into account how much larger the existing building appears to be over the pre-existing/original barn. The Green Belt protection aims of the Framework, and the development plan are clear in restricting the incremental growth of existing buildings.

Figures are only part of the story and neither policy nor the Framework specify an upper limit to what can represent disproportionate. It is therefore a matter of judgement. Taking the above as a starting point, the additional space would represent the size of the existing living room, all of the entrance hall and storage area and part of the bedroom. This would be a significant amount of additional space compared even to the existing in qualitative terms. It would present on paper and in reality, as something of considerably greater mass and bulk.

Contextually speaking, and taking into account what has gone before, I can draw no other conclusion than the appeal scheme representing disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. In so being, the proposals would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, contrary to the position of the Framework and Policy G2 of the LP.

I have considered the relevance of paragraph 154 (g) of the Framework which refers to limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land. Whether or not the appeal site could be considered as previously developed land for the purposes of the Framework aside, the scheme would be neither limited infilling (as it is an extension expanding an existing building outwards into otherwise undeveloped space) nor redevelopment. To be the latter, one would expect some form of substantive demolition and rebuilding. How far and to what extent would be a matter for judgement in each case. The appeal scheme would be development, not redevelopment.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework addresses grey belt. This can be, for the purposes of the development of homes, commercial and other development, not inappropriate subject to all of specific criteria being met. Grey belt land can be either previously developed or that which does not strongly contribute to Green Belt purposes. Even if this applied to the appeal site, there does not appear to be a demonstrable unmet need for the proposed development, and there are question marks over whether the location is sustainable.

Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. It has both a visual and spatial aspect. The latter can be taken to mean the absence of built form. The built-up context of the appeal site consists of the host dwelling, another outbuilding to the front, some dwellings to the north and agrarian/equestrian related development opposite. These would, visually speaking, absorb the visual effects of the proposals on the Green Belt’s openness fairly readily. That said, the scheme would still represent additional built form of a not insignificant amount in land take and volume terms where there was previously none. This would unavoidably reduce the spatial aspect of the openness of the Green Belt, contrary to the protection aims of the Framework and the LP. This harm would be in addition to the appeal scheme’s inappropriateness.

The evidence suggests that the additional space is required for a disabled family member. I am mindful of the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED), contained in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, which sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it. Disability is a protected characteristic to which the PSED applies.

Beyond the need for the additional space to assist in physical therapy and quality of life improvements, the evidence does not present any further information as to the specifics of any conditions and thus how and why they may require the location and amount of space proposed. It is also unclear as to why such space could not be supplied elsewhere in other buildings or the host dwelling. [name] therefore appreciate the personal need and ascribe it some weight, such would be moderate for these reasons.

It appears that, in the case of Deeside, the dwelling was permitted additions totalling less than 60% in volume terms compared to the original. The officer report explicitly says it was less than 50%. In either respect, this is less than the 66% uplift for the appeal scheme, which concerns the existing. The total volumetric increase from the original to the appeal scheme would be even greater as I have explained. [address], the appellant suggests this was a 60% permitted increase. Whilst it is not clear whether this is volume or floor area, this is the only figure advanced, and the officer report therefore does not add anything in this respect. This figure is also less than the appeal scheme. Neither of these approvals point me to a different conclusion than I have above on whether the appeal scheme would either represent disproportionate additions or cause harm to the Green Belt’s openness.

The appeal proposals would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. They would also unacceptably erode the Green Belt’s openness. As per the Framework, substantial weight should be afforded to any harm to the Green Belt. The other considerations I have considered above would, in combination, be worthy of moderate weight. This would be insufficient against the harms I have found, which any other considerations must clearly outweigh. Such that the very special circumstances needed to justify the appeal scheme do not exist. The proposed development would conflict with the development plan and material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed

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