Appeal 6001141

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form originally described the proposal as “Replacement dwelling house at Atlasta, [address], [name] [postcode] .” During the application process the Council amended this to “Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of detached 4‐bedroom dwelling.” No evidence has been submitted with the appeal showing that the applicant agreed to this change in description. However, the appellant has adopted the revised description on the appeal form. As the revised wording more accurately reflects the development for which permission is sought, I have determined the appeal on that basis.

The main issues are (i) whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; (ii) the effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; and (iii) If the development is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

Policy 49 of The London Borough of Bromley Local Plan 2019 (BLP) directs that development within the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within certain specified exceptions. Paragraph 5.2.5 of the supporting text to Policy 49 directs that exceptions to inappropriate development are set out in Local Plan Polices and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) 2024. There are two exceptions in dispute: the replacement of an existing building, and development on ‘grey belt’ land. I consider each in turn.

It is not disputed that the existing and proposed replacement building would both be of the same use.

Policy 52 of the BLP ([name] in the Green Belt) requires that a replacement dwelling should not result in a material net increase in floor area, ascertained by external measurement, and should not harm visual amenity or the open or rural character of the locality.

Paragraph 5.2.17 of the BLP, which provides supporting text to Policy 52, states that, as a general guide, an increase of more than 10% in floor area would be regarded as material, although this may also depend on design considerations.

While the 10% figure offers a useful starting point for assessing whether a replacement dwelling is materially larger than the existing, Policy 52 concerns the design and character implications of replacement dwellings. It does not determine whether a proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. That assessment falls to be made under Policy 49 of the BLP.

Policy 49 of the BLP and paragraph 154(d) of the Framework are consistent with regard to assessing replacement buildings for the purposes of Green Belt. Neither Policy 49 of the BLP nor the Framework prescribes specific criteria for determining whether a replacement building is materially larger, as such it is a matter of planning judgement.

In considering whether a replacement building would be materially larger I consider the exercise is primarily an objective one by reference to size. However, in cases where increases in dimensions are marginal, qualitative factors such as visual impact and bulk can inform the assessment but cannot override clear and substantial increases in size.

The proposed building would represent a 9% increase in volume and an 87% increase in floor area. [name] acknowledge that it would have a lower ridge height and a marginally reduced footprint, the overall scale of the replacement building leads me to conclude that the replacement building would be materially larger than the building it seeks to replace. Qualitative considerations such as visual impact and bulk do not displace this conclusion, rather, in so far as is relevant to my assessment they serve only to reinforce it.

As such, the replacement building would not benefit from the exception found in Policy 49 of the BLP, or at paragraph 154(d) of the Framework, in so far as they relate to replacement buildings.

The appellant has referred me to planning permission within the same council area, reference 13/00205/FULL1, granted in March 2013 for a replacement dwelling in the Green Belt.

The appellant has submitted the [name] (OR) for that application, the OR outlines the Council’s assessment of that proposal against the policy framework in force at the time. The OR confirms that the replacement building policy then in force was worded materially the same as Policy 49 of the current BLP. It is clear in the OR that in 2013 the Council took account of a potential permitted development fall‐back position to form the baseline from which to assess whether a replacement building would be materially larger. However, the courts1 established in 2015 that an unbuilt permitted development scheme could not be included in such an assessment. However, it could be relevant at the stage of considering very special circumstances. I shall turn to this later in my decision. “Grey belt” land

Paragraph 155 of the Framework sets out that the development of homes in the Green Belt should not be regarded as inappropriate where it utilises grey belt land subject to a number of criteria. Annex 2 to the Framework defines grey belt as land in the Green Belt comprising previously developed land and/or any other land that, in either case, does not strongly contribute to any of purposes (a), (b), or (d) in paragraph 143 of the Framework.

I consider that the site makes a strong contribution to purpose (a) checking the unrestricted sprawl of large built‐up areas. In making this assessment I have been guided by observations taken on site and by the relevant paragraphs in the National Planning Practice Guidance2. The site lies at the edge of the settlement of [name], which forms part of the wider continuous built‐up area extending from Orpington. Aside from the existing building and a small number of outbuildings, the development on the site is well contained, and there are no readily apparent physical features in the vicinity that would serve to restrict or contain further development. In this context, and in the absence of any contradictory evidence from the parties, I conclude that the site performs an important role in preventing the outward spread of built form. I therefore find that it makes a strong contribution to checking the unrestricted sprawl of [name] and the wider Orpington urban area.

Given that I have found that the site strongly contributes to the purpose listed at paragraph 143 (a) of the Framework, I do not need to assess the contribution the site makes to the other purposes listed.

For the reasons cited above the appeal site would not comprise grey belt land and as such would not benefit from the exception listed at paragraph 155 of the Framework.

The appellant has referred me to a dismissed appeal decision dated 11 April 20253 concerning the demolition of an existing dwelling and the erection of a three‐bedroom replacement dwelling (part retrospective) within the same council area, [address], Bromley. [name] have not been provided with the full details of that case, I was able to view that site during my visit for the current appeal. From my observations, it was evident that the context of that site differs markedly from the circumstances of this appeal in relation to a grey belt assessment, particularly in terms of the density of surrounding development and the overall pattern and knit of built form. Accordingly, that decision carries limited weight in my assessment of the present appeal.

In conclusion, the replacement building would not benefit from any of the exceptions found in Policy 49 of the BLP nor at paragraphs 154(d) or 155 of the Framework. The appeal proposal would therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. 1 [address] Ltd v SSCLG & LB of Camden [2015] EWHC 3524 (admin) 2 Paragraph: 005 [name]: 64-005-20250225 3 Appeal Ref: APP/G5180/W/24/3351225

The courts4 have identified that a range of considerations may be relevant when assessing the impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt. Openness has both spatial and visual dimensions. Accordingly, the visual impact of a proposal can be a material consideration, as can factors such as its volume, the extent of any increase in floor area, and other physical attributes.

The replacement building would be materially larger than the existing structure, and visually the additional bulk and mass at roof level would increase the perceived scale of development. As a result, the proposal would have a harmful impact on the openness of the Green Belt in both spatial and visual terms. While the rising ground behind the replacement building provides a natural backdrop that tempers the effect, this does not overcome the fundamental loss of openness arising from the increased scale of built form. The development would result in harm to the openness of the Green Belt. This carries substantial weight against the proposal.

Policy 49 of the BLP directs that permission will not be given for inappropriate development unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated. The Framework echoes this position and further advises 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 proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The appellant submits that a potential unbuilt permitted development fall-back proposal should be taken into consideration and afforded weight in the determination of the appeal. However, no substantive evidence with regard to the scale and visual impact of that potential fall-back have been provided, nor has any information regarding the likelihood of any potential fall-back being built out. As such, the potential fall-back carries limited weight in my assessment of the present appeal.

I find that the other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to allow the development do not exist.

The application was submitted to the Council on the basis that it would comprise a self-build dwelling and, in the applicant’s view, would therefore be exempt from mandatory [name] requirements. The appeal has been submitted on this basis. The Council has raised concern regarding the absence of a suitable legal agreement to secure the development as self-build. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for the substantive reasons set out above, this is not a determinative matter, and it is not necessary for me to consider it further.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a number of court 5 decisions addressing the importance of consistency in decision‐making. I acknowledge that consistency 4 Turner v SSCLG & East Dorset Council [2016] [name] 466 and R (on the application of [name] (Tadcaster) and others) (Respondents) v North Yorkshire County Council (Appellant) [2020] UKSC 5 [name] v Secretary of State for the Environment, (1993) 65 P. & C.R. 137 and Cumberlege v Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government [2017] EWHC 2057 is a well-established principle of good administration and that decision‐makers should have regard to previous decisions where the circumstances are comparable. I have therefore considered the cited authorities insofar as they are relevant to the matters before me. However, each case must ultimately be determined on its own merits, having regard to the specific facts, the development plan, and all other material considerations.

The Council cannot demonstrate a five‐year supply of deliverable housing; the most recently published position indicates a supply of 1.93 years. In these circumstances, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework, the presumption in favour of sustainable development, is of relevance. However, footnote 7 confirms that the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply where policies in the Framework that protect areas such as the Green Belt provide a strong reason for refusing the development proposed. For the reasons set out above, the appeal scheme would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would result in harm to openness. These harms attract substantial weight. There are no other considerations, whether taken individually or cumulatively, that would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and the other identified harm so as to amount to the very special circumstances. In the absence of very special circumstances, the Green Belt policies of the Framework provide the strong reason for refusal envisaged by paragraph 11(d)(i), and the presumption in favour of sustainable development is therefore not engaged.

The appeal proposal would replace an aged dwelling with a modern building constructed to contemporary sustainability standards and better suited to the needs of the applicant. These are benefits that attract modest weight. However, the scheme would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would harm openness in both spatial and visual terms. These harms attract substantial weight and decisively outweigh the limited benefits of the proposal.

Accordingly, the proposal would be contrary to the development plan when taken as a whole, and no material considerations including the Framework indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it.

For the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.