Appeal 6001132

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 description above is taken from the application form and differs from the decision notice. The application does not include air source heat pumps but rather a single air conditioning condenser (AC) unit. The gym and AC unit are already in place at the site. I have dealt with the appeal accordingly.

The main issues are a) whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt; b) its effect on the openness of the Green Belt; c) its effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the neighbouring properties with particular regard to noise and d) if the scheme is inappropriate development, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It 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. The Framework adds that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, but lists exceptions in paragraph 154. The appellant has contended that the exception at Paragraph 154 (g) is applicable, which relates to limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of [name] (PDL), whether redundant or in continuing use, which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The Framework provides a definition for PDL which specifically excludes land in built-up areas such as residential gardens.

The appeal building is a large, detached property with substantial gardens to the front and rear. It is part of a group of other larger scale buildings on [site address] . There is low density but contiguous development between the appeal site and the centre of Halstead village. There is a similar situation in the opposite direction towards Orpington albeit it does peter out in places. Although nearby plots are equally spacious and in amongst planting, the extent and regularity of development in both the street scene and the wider locality is defining of the characteristics of a built-up area. Even if one were to consider the buildings and residential curtilages that the appeal site is part of as something of an enclave outside of the village, the land on which the appeal building finds itself would still be in a built-up area. There is nothing in the Framework to identify how large a built-up area has to be to be so. With this in mind, the appeal site would not be PDL for the purposes of the Framework. As such, the scheme would not be acceptable under 154 (g).

Paragraph 154 (c) of the Framework sets out that the extension or alteration of a building provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building would not be inappropriate development. The Framework does not explicitly state what is meant by disproportionate. There are not any maximum floor area, floor space or volume figures quoted. It is therefore a matter of judgement in each case.

Whilst not an extension for the purposes of Policy GB1 of the Sevenoaks District Council Allocations and Development Management Plan 2015 (ADMP) as the appeal scheme is more than five metres away from the dwelling, it has been held that an outbuilding within a residential curtilage can be considered as an extension for the purpose of what is the most up to date expression of national Green Belt policy as it is set out by the Framework. The building in this case is towards the bottom of end of the rear garden but is clearly related to the host dwelling, functionally reliant on it, incidental to its use, facing it and within what is an expansive but contained private garden. As a domestic adjunct in this case, it is reasonable to consider the appeal scheme as an extension for the Framework’s purposes.

The planning history of the appeal site suggests that the dwelling as it was originally has grown. Planning permission was granted for a series of extensions. This was superseded by an approved scheme for a replacement. In each case, the building was increased in size in both land take and volumetric terms, quantitively and qualitatively. It is the latter of these two schemes that was implemented. I.e. the dwelling that is currently on site is a replacement of the original. It is suggested that in both cases the extent of increase was the same.

Taking the stance of the most recent iteration of the Framework, and if the replacement dwelling were to be considered now, it would be assessed against the existing building, rather than original. The appellant suggests that the increase would have amounted to just under [address] metres of more floor area. Floor area and a square metreage suggests land take as opposed to floor space which could be a multiple over more than one storey. That said, it remains the case that extensions in the Green Belt, under the Framework, are still considered on a cumulative basis against the original building. This is in line with the Green Belt policy stance seeking to limit incremental new development therein that might undermine its purposes.

Taking the Council’s calculations in this respect, which demonstrates an expansion of the original building by quite some degree, the addition of the outbuilding brings that to an uplift of some significance that is nothing less than disproportionate. Even taking the appellant’s lower figures, the outbuilding would represent as near as makes limited difference an extra [address] metres of floor area which would also be substantial in Green Belt terms, taking into account the floor area of the extended dwelling from how it ‘existed’.

The floor area of the additions over the original building does not take into account the bulk and mass of what has been added over time. The additions to the building were over multiple storeys and included roof alterations. The outbuilding is sprawling in its land take and of noticeable mass despite being single storey. Taking this and the above together, the only conclusion to draw is that the appeal scheme, which seeks the effective retention of the outbuilding, is inappropriate development in the Green Belt through not satisfying any of the exceptions expressed by paragraph 154. This would be harmful to the Green Belt by definition.

One of the essential characteristics of the Green Belt is its openness which, it has been established, can have a visual and spatial aspect. The latter can be taken to mean the absence of built form. Policy GB3 of the ADMP explains, amongst other things, that outbuildings located more than 5m from the existing dwelling will be permitted where the building, including the cumulative impact of other outbuildings and extension within the curtilage of the dwelling, would be ancillary to the main dwelling in terms of function and design and would not materially harm the openness of the Green Belt through excessive bulk or visual intrusion.

The outbuilding is incidental rather than ancillary which suggests a closer functional relationship with the host dwelling. It represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt owing to what has gone before and as such has a noticeable cumulative impact on the Green Belt in those terms. In regard to openness specifically, it is mainly screened from public views and the effect on the visual aspect is therefore limited and visual intrusion equally so.

Nevertheless, the scale of the outbuilding takes up substantial space where there was no built form and would therefore, unavoidably and taking into account what has been developed previously, reduce the spatial aspect of the Green Belt’s openness. Such an effect would, given the size and mass of the building and how the host has grown from how it was originally and previously, lead to material harm to the Green Belt through excessive bulk. This would be in further conflict with the position of the Framework, and the aims of Policy GB3 of the ADMP.

The outbuilding is positioned in the rear corner of the garden alongside the boundary with [address] as annotated on the site location plan. Both properties benefit from large rear gardens. The AC unit is tucked behind the outbuilding close to the rear boundary of the appeal property.

The noise assessment specifies that the unit would have little likelihood of an adverse impact. I have no evidence before me to suggest that this would not be the case. Combining this with the distance from the AC unit to the closest residential property, the position of the outbuilding providing a barrier and the nature of the building being likely to be used during sociable hours, I am comfortable that the proposed development would not give rise to any excessive noise levels. The development would not therefore cause harm to the living conditions of the occupants of the closest residential properties in accordance with Policy EN2 of the ADMP which is concerned with amenity protection.

I do not doubt that the outbuilding could have previously been considered as permitted development. However, permitted development rights have been removed. Whether or not it was reasonable for the Council to remove permitted development rights is not an issue that I am able to consider as part of this appeal. The lawful position that existed at the time the certificate of lawful development was granted for a similar building previously does not prevail.

Having regard to the Dartford example, the case found that residential gardens in non-built-up areas are not excluded from the definition of previously developed land. Similarly, the [name] example was concerned with land which met the definition. That is not the case here because the garden is within a built-up area as I have explained above and is therefore excluded from the definition. Both the Edenbridge and [name] examples are concerned with extensions or replacement of existing outbuildings and are also therefore not directly comparable. Of the examples that have been provided, I therefore remain to be convinced that the appeal should be allowed.

The site is within the Halstead Conservation Area. Given the location and scale of the development, it does not cause harm to the significance of the area, and this was not a contentious matter in the appeal. However, A lack of harm is a neutral matter and incapable of weighing in favour of the development.

The appeal scheme would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and it would also reduce its openness. These are worthy of substantial weight. My findings on the effect of the proposal on living conditions would be a lack of harm and thus neutral. The other considerations I have investigated attract limited weight taken together, such that they would not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt I have found. There are therefore no very special circumstances that would justify the proposal. I therefore recommend that, bearing in mind material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan, 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.