Appeal 6001061

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposed development is already in place and I shall deal with the appeal on this basis. Concerns have been raised relating to alleged inaccuracies in the submitted plans. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal on the basis of the information before me (which includes building and topographical surveys), and what I saw on site.

The appeal site comprises [site address] , a 2-storey brick building which was originally built as a domestic garage to serve [site address] , and a 2- storey rear extension with a decking area, which is connected to [site address] .

Appeal decision [name]/J3720/X/24/3345767 confirmed that the use of [site address] as a C3 dwellinghouse was lawful at the date of the 2024 application for a Lawful Development Certificate. The Inspector made it clear that an application for planning permission for the 2-storey rear extension was not under consideration in that appeal.

The present appeal seeks planning permission for the above-mentioned extension and the raised decking area. As the site is located within the Green Belt the main issues are: • whether the development is 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 development on the openness and purposes 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 development.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework establishes that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless certain exceptions apply. Paragraph 154 g) of the Framework refers to 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), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

The development under consideration in this appeal is physically attached to [site address] , which is currently in use as a dwelling. Unhindered access is possible between the dwelling and the development. The dwelling and the development share the same rear private amenity area and a path to the side of the building leading to that area. As such, the development is so intimately associated with [site address] that it forms part-and-parcel of the dwelling.

The site is located amongst a low density cluster of buildings sited to the south of the M40, situated within a wider area consisting of largely sporadic development dispersed amongst the open countryside. Hence, the exclusion to previously developed land, relating to land in built-up areas, is not applicable to the site.

It follows that the land occupied by the development is previously developed land as defined in the Framework, due to it falling within the curtilage of [site address] . In reaching this finding, it is noteworthy that the Council’s Officer’s Report referred to the fact that the works have occurred on previously developed land.

Even so, for the development to benefit from the exception at paragraph 154 g), it must constitute limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land. Although the development is sited broadly in line with the rear elevation of [address], apart from a low-rise outbuilding which is set away from the common boundary between the plots comprising the site and [site address] , the land immediately to the south of the development is largely vacant. Thus, the development does not comprise limited infilling.

The appellant has confirmed that the extension occupies land that was previously free of built form, and that, apart from the development under consideration in this appeal, [site address] has not previously been extended. As such, no demolition has occurred. The development before me does not involve any other changes to the site, apart from the extension and the area of decking. In essence, the extension of [site address] has constituted new development, rather than the redevelopment of land as contemplated by paragraph 154 g) of the Framework.

In reaching this finding, I am mindful that the extension or alteration of a building is separately present as a discrete development type within paragraph 154 of the Framework. This reinforces my finding that it would be overextending the meaning of the word ‘redevelopment’ beyond its proper meaning, as used in paragraph 154 g), to encompass the mere extension of a building in circumstances where no demolition has occurred and where no new buildings have been erected.

I have had regard to appeal decision [name]/T0355/W/24/3352921. That development involved the demolition of some structures, including a detached outbuilding. At paragraph 8 of that appeal decision, the Inspector specifically referred to the demolition of some structures as part of their reasoning that the proposed development would partially redevelop the site. Conversely, in the present appeal, no demolition has occurred. As that appeal decision is not directly comparable with the development before me, it does not change my finding that the development does not benefit from the exception to inappropriate development found at paragraph 154 g) of the Framework. For the same reasons, the development does not fall within the exception to inappropriate development found at part c. of Policy CS.10 of the Core Strategy1, which refers to the partial or complete redevelopment of a previously developed site.

Paragraph 154 c) of the Framework relates to the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Matters relating to the effect of the development on openness are not under consideration at this stage. Rather, as paragraph 154 c) refers to the size of the original building, that is the focus of my assessment. Paragraph 4.1.9 of the [name] explains that the previously-applied 30% maximum threshold relating to the scale of a house extension is no longer appropriate. I have assessed the development on its own merits, in light of the prevailing circumstances.

It is common ground between the main parties that the development has resulted in an approximately 74% increase in volume over and above the size of the original building. Although the extension is slightly set-back from the northern elevation of [site address] and is set down from its ridge, the increase in volume caused is clearly considerable. The scale and massing of the development is such that it does not comprise a small-scale extension or alteration of a building, which part b. of Policy CS.10 sets out as the relevant test for such development to not be inappropriate in principle in the Green Belt.

Furthermore, the development has significantly increased both the footprint and the floorspace of [site address] . Views of the extension from public vantage points are limited. Nevertheless, I observed that when standing in front of the entrance to the plot comprising [address], due to its depth and height the extension is clearly visible as a substantially-sized and bulky addition to [site address] , even taking account of its marginal set-down from the ridge of the dwelling.

For these reasons, I consider that the development has resulted in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The development does not benefit from the exception to inappropriate development found at paragraph 154 c) of the Framework.

I therefore find that, as neither exception found at paragraph 154 c) nor paragraph 154 g) apply, and as the development is not one of the forms of development in the Green Belt which Policy CS.10 specifies are not inappropriate in principle, the 1 Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy 2011 to 2031 (adopted 2016) ([name]) development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt.

The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that openness is capable of having both spatial and visual aspects2. Openness can be harmed even when development is not readily visible from the public realm.

The site is closely bordered by [address] to the north, [site address] to the south and several outbuildings to the east. Whilst the development is sizeable in comparison with [site address] , its footprint and volume is proportionate with that of nearby buildings. Nevertheless, due to its siting on land which was previously free of built form, the development has reduced the openness of the Green Belt in spatial terms to a limited extent.

The development has partially eroded the previously open space found to the immediate rear of [site address] . Although views of the extension from public vantage points are limited, it is visible to passers-by walking along [site address] . Where visible, it appears as a tall and deep addition to [site address] . From other viewpoints, including from the plots comprising nearby residential properties, the development is seen in the context of the cluster of buildings of which [site address] forms of part, some of which are of a much larger scale than the development. Although the decking to the rear of the extension is raised, it is low in profile and has a minimal footprint. Consequently, the development has had a limited reducing effect on the openness of the Green Belt in visual terms.

In summary, the adverse impacts caused to the openness of the Green Belt in both spatial and visual terms are limited and localised. Nevertheless, as the development has not preserved its openness, harm to the Green Belt has been caused.

Appeal decision [name]/T0355/W/24/3352921 similarly considered factors relating to openness, including the visibility and physical containment of the proposed development. In that case, the Inspector’s findings were made solely in relation to the exception to inappropriate development found at paragraph 154 g) of the Framework. This included the requirement at paragraph 154 g) that a scheme must not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. As explained above, the development does not benefit from that exception. The ‘substantial harm’ test is not applicable. As a result, that appeal decision does not change my findings.

Due to the expansion of built form across the site, which has resulted in adverse impacts to the openness of the Green Belt, the development has undermined the purpose of the Green Belt with respect to its assistance in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment (paragraph 143 c) of the Framework), albeit to a limited degree. 2 Paragraph 64-[phone]

The Framework makes it clear at paragraph 153 that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. It establishes that 'very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposed development, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The development has, in principle, used previously developed land efficiently. As a householder development, the benefits in this regard to the local area are not significant. This matter attracts very little weight in support of the development.

The appellant has put forward a fallback position, relating to demolishing the development and rebuilding within permitted development parameters. Mention has been made of the addition of rear and side extensions, as well as outbuildings, on site. Given the assurances made by the appellant, I have no doubt that there is a real prospect that such rights would be exercised in the event that this appeal is dismissed. The Inspector in appeal decision [name]/M3455/W/20/3249013 described a similar scenario. However, it is necessary to consider the weight to be ascribed to the fallback position, taking account of the particular circumstances of the site and its surroundings.

Permitted development rights are subject to multiple conditions and limitations. For example, in relation to an extension which is more than a single-storey, paragraph A.1.(h) of Class A of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO3 limits its depth to 3 metres. As another example, paragraph A.1.(j)(ii) of Class A limits side extensions to single-storey only.

Due to the limited visibility of the side elevation of [site address] from public vantage points, a single-storey side extension on the northern side of the dwelling would be unlikely to be more visually prominent than the appeal development. In all likelihood, such development would have a similar or lesser effect on the openness of the Green Belt in visual terms than the appeal development.

A combination of smaller extensions and outbuildings to replicate the floorspace of the existing extension could lead to a wider spread of development across the site. In this regard, as per paragraph A.1.(b) of Class A, extensions and other buildings must not exceed 50% of the curtilage of the dwelling. Similarly, paragraph E.1.(b) of Class E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the GPDO provides that the total area of ground around the dwelling covered by buildings, enclosures and containers must not exceed 50% of the total area of the curtilage, excluding the original dwelling. Considering this, and noting the significant bulk which the appeal development has added to [site address] , it is unlikely that such development would cause a greater erosion of the openness of the Green Belt than the appeal development.

As held in Mansell4, detailed designs are not required by law to establish a valid fallback position. However, due to the significant increase in the volume of [site address] caused by the appeal development, in the absence of drawings illustrating the scope of any development intended to be undertaken via the permitted development route, and taking account of the likely impacts described 3 The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) 4 Mansell v Tonbridge and [name] & others [2017] [name] 1314 above, it has not been demonstrated that such development would have a greater adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the appeal development. The fallback position attracts little weight in support of the development.

It has been stated that the development assists in meeting the appellant’s health needs. I have taken account of the aims of the Public Sector Equality Duty contained in the Equality Act 2010 (as amended), including with respect to the relevant protected characteristics. It has not however been demonstrated that the development is the only way that these needs could be met, or that the development represents the least harmful viable option. Additionally, the PPG provides that, in general, planning is concerned with land use in the public interest5. The development is likely to remain in situ far beyond the point at which these personal circumstances remain to be relevant. This matter attracts little weight in support of the development.

The development has enlarged and enhanced the accommodation on site. Although it has been stated that [site address] offers a very cramped living environment, it is clearly useable as living accommodation, given that appeal decision [name]/J3720/X/24/3345767 confirmed that it has been used as a self-contained dwelling for at least 4 years without significant interruption. This matter attracts little weight in support of the development.

I note the support given at paragraph 5.6.3 of the [name] for modifications to dwellings. The development provides improved living accommodation which would benefit the future occupiers of [site address] over the long-term. Whilst this is acknowledged, there is no evidence that [site address] is at a risk of loss or significant deterioration in the absence of the development. Nor has it been demonstrated that a less harmful scheme could not achieve the same aims. This matter attracts little weight in support of the development.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework is the only relevant policy in the Framework relating to decision-making on grey belt land. Even if I were to find that the development has utilised grey belt land, as there is not a demonstrable unmet need for the development type, the development does not meet all of the relevant requirements as set out in that paragraph. Hence, the support given in the Framework to certain development types on grey belt land is not applicable to the development. This is a neutral matter, which does not weigh in favour of the development.

The development’s form and materials have ensured that it appropriately integrates with the design of [site address] . No harm has been caused to the character and appearance of the area. It is common ground between the main parties that the development does not adversely impact the Arden Special Landscape Area. Due to the limited scale of the development in the context of the wider landscape, I concur with this assessment. These are also neutral matters.

The development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and has resulted in a reduction in its openness. These matters carry substantial weight. As a matter 5 Paragraph 21b-008-20140306 of planning judgement, I find that the other considerations in totality amount to no more than moderate weight in support of the development. They do not clearly outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt. The very special circumstances required to justify the development do not exist.

The development conflicts with Policy CS.10 of the [name] which provides that, amongst other things, the purposes of the Green Belt will be upheld by resisting inappropriate development within it, except in cases where very special circumstances are justified in accordance with the provisions of national policy. The development also conflicts with the aims of Green Belt policy as set out in the Framework.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations (including the representations of all interested parties), I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.