Appeal 6001056

The appeal is dismissed.

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; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on protected species, specifically bats; 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 is located 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.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework sets out that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt, other than in a few exceptions including (c) the extension or alteration of a building provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Policy P17 of the Solihull Local Plan: Shaping a [name], December 2013 (the LP) reflects to a large extent national policy and is thus considered broadly consistent with the Framework.

The Framework does not define “disproportionate”. Likewise, Policy P17 of the LP offers no definition. However, guidance within the [address] [name] 2010 Supplementary Planning Document (the SPD) suggests that in the Green Belt the Council will limit extensions to any property to no more than 40% of the original habitable floor space measured externally.

The property has been extended previously in the form of a two-storey extension and conservatory, granted planning permission in March 2005, Council reference: 2005/16. The Council suggest that the previous extensions amounted to an approximate increase of 63% above the original floor space of the building. The proposals would increase the floor area to a total of 85% above the original floor space of the building. This would be a significant increase in terms of floorspace and would greatly exceed the guidelines set out in the SPD.

Although the appellant suggests that the proposed extension is modest, it would nonetheless add additional floor space at ground floor and first floor, which would, with the previous extensions, cumulatively add to the scale and bulk of the original building. As a consequence, the proposal, in combination with previous extensions, would amount to disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

The proposed development would therefore be inappropriate development, which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt.

As already identified, the Framework emphasises that a fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

The frontage fence and hedge would, to some degree, restrict views of the proposed extension. Nevertheless, due to the proximity next to the boundary, it would be visible from certain vantage points along [site address] . As such, it would have an impact on the visual openness of the Green Belt. Likewise, given the additional bulk that would be introduced to the building, the proposal would have additional impact upon the spatial openness of the Green Belt.

Consequently, the proposed extension would materially reduce the spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt, and there would be moderate harm to openness at a localised level to which I attach substantial weight in accordance with the Framework. The harm to openness would be in addition to the inappropriateness of the proposal.

Circular 06/20051 states that it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by development, is established before permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed. The use of conditions to require 1 [name] 06/2005: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation - [name] and their Impact within the Planning System mitigation or compensation measures would also be inappropriate in the absence of a survey because there can be no certainty that such measures would satisfactorily address any harm that might occur to the protected species.

The appellant suggests that photographic evidence of the roof, both internally and externally, does not show an indication of bat presence. However, the appeal is not supported by an ecology or protected species survey. Without such information, and owing to the age, rural location and the proximity of the building to existing trees, I cannot conclude with any degree of confidence that the proposed extensions to the building would not result in harm to protected species or its habitats.

For the above reasons, I conclude that it has not been shown with any certainty that the proposal would not cause unacceptable harm to protected species, specifically bats. Therefore, it is contrary to Policy P10 of the LP, which amongst other things, seeks to conserve, enhance and restore biodiversity, and requires development to be informed by the latest information on habitats and species.

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 extension would provide additional floor space to support the evolving family needs of the appellant. The design and use of facing materials would also complement the appearance of the original dwelling and existing tall trees would provide some degree of screening. The position of the proposal would also not result in overlooking of neighbouring properties and it would only result in a small proportion of the large garden being lost. However, in combination, these benefits attract modest weight in favour of the proposal.

While it is suggested that larger residential developments and infrastructure projects, such as HS2, cause greater disturbance and stress locally, those examples are not comparable to the appeal scheme before me. Given this, those developments do not add weight in favour of the scheme. Therefore, as I am required to do, I have determined the case before me on the site-specific circumstances and on its own merits.

The proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt which in line with Paragraph 153 of the Framework is harmful by definition. I have also found that the appeal proposal would reduce the openness of the Green Belt which also amounts to harm and carries substantial weight. It has also not been demonstrated that the proposed development would not cause unacceptable harm to protected species.

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 Policies P10 and P17 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.