Appeal 6001054

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the construction of an outbuilding at [site address] , [site address] , [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/0741/FUL, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the unnumbered drawings: Location Plan, Existing Site Plan, Proposed Site Plan and [name].

The description of development above has been taken from the original application form. I have altered the description within my formal decision to better reflect the proposed development.

The main issues are:  whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, including its effect on the openness of the Green Belt, having regard to local and national policy; 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 development.

The appeal site falls within land defined as Green Belt. It comprises the garden land associated with [site address] and is enclosed by a combination of hedges and fencing with surrounded by open countryside with scattered dwellings. As it is not located within a built-up area, the appeal site comprises previously developed land as defined by the Framework.

Policy CP11 of the Three Rivers District Council Core Strategy (October 2011)(CS) is broadly consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) which identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It states that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

The construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt. Policy DM2 of the Three Rivers District Council Local Development Document (July 2013) (LDD) sets out some exceptions, including ancillary buildings such as the proposal. However, Framework Paragraphs 154 and 155 provides the most up to date exceptions.

Framework Paragraph 154 d) allows for the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. I understand that there was an outbuilding on site in roughly the same location which was demolished in 2020. However, this structure was demolished some time ago and the proposal cannot be considered a replacement building.

Notwithstanding the Council’s assertion that there are no provisions within the Framework that allow for the erection of new ancillary outbuildings; Framework Paragraph 154 g) allows for the partial redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use, which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

The proposal would introduce an additional structure within the Garden which would be visible within the surrounding landscape. Despite its position forward of the host dwelling, the outbuilding would be viewed as part of the existing residential curtilage and would not result in the spread of urbanising development.

Whilst it would appear as a large outbuilding of substantial construction, including its pitched roof and projecting canopy and symmetrical windows, it would be subordinate in scale and ancillary in nature to the host dwelling. As such, I find that there would be minimal harm to the openness of the Green Belt and that the proposal would accord with paragraph 154 g).

LDD Policy DM2 provides an alternative exemption for ancillary buildings, but as I am satisfied that the proposal would accord with an exemption within the Framework, it is not necessary to assess the proposal against its requirements.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, including its effect on the Green Belt, having regard to local and national policy. It would accord with CS Policy CP11 and LDD Policy DM2 where they collectively seek to control development in the Green Belt. Further, the proposal would accord with the Framework where it requires development within the Green Belt to not be inappropriate.

Aside from the statutory condition required to set the necessary time limit for development, a condition is required to indicate the approved plans to provide certainty. An additional condition related to the external materials is not necessary as the proposed materials are adequately detailed on the approved drawings.

Planning Practice Guidance states that conditions restricting the future use of permitted development rights often do not pass the test of reasonableness or necessity. Notwithstanding the appeal site’s location within the Green Belt, I am not convinced that any development possible as permitted development would have a significant detrimental effect on the openness of the Green Belt. As such, I have not imposed the suggested condition.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would accord with the development plan as a whole and the Framework, and therefore the appeal is allowed.