Appeal 6001150

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of garage/workshop residential accommodation to separate dwelling at [site address] , [address], Wolverley, Worcestershire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/0702/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal upon non-designated heritage assets (NDHAs); • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any development plan policies, including any relevant effects on the openness of the Green Belt; and • if inappropriate, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness would be clearly outweighed by other considerations to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The appeal site contains two non‐designated heritage assets. These are [site address] and [name]. The evidence before me indicates that these buildings date from the 17th century and historically formed part of a loose courtyard arrangement, with two sides defined by agricultural buildings and the farmhouse positioned separately from them. The submitted information also highlights that a substantial proportion of the traditional farmstead buildings have been lost. This was confirmed during my site visit, where it appeared that only the farmhouse and a single remaining agricultural structure survive aside from the building subject to this appeal. The historical significance of the NDHAs therefore lies principally in the surviving layout and spatial relationship of the buildings that once collectively comprised [site address] .

Policy SP.21 of the Wyre Forest District Council Local Plan 2022 (LP) notes that development proposals should protect, conserve and enhance all heritage assets, including NDHAs and their settings, subject to the provisions of Policy DM.23 of the LP. Policy DM.23 sets out to safeguard the historic environment.

I acknowledge that the application was not accompanied by a Heritage Statement. Nevertheless, I have considered the historical context of the appeal building and the nature of the proposed alterations. The officer report explains that the building was granted planning permission in 1996, and it is therefore reasonable to conclude that it is unlikely to form part of the 17th‐century structures associated with the NDHAs. As such, the appeal building does not appear to contribute to the historic fabric or significance of the NDHAs.

Paragraph 216 of the Framework requires that, when considering applications that directly or indirectly affect non‐designated heritage assets, decision‐makers must reach a balanced judgement having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the asset. In this case, the proposed external works comprise the replacement of existing garage doors with a new front door and window arrangement, alongside additional new openings and the infilling of an existing canopy. The proposal would facilitate the creation of a separate residential dwelling, a use that remains commensurate with the residential function of the existing building.

In having a balanced judgment as required by the Framework, I am of the view that such changes, to a building which has, in planning terms, been a somewhat recent addition to [site address] , are limited in scale. The host structure would retain an appearance broadly consistent with its existing form, and its resulting use would remain closely aligned with the residential function already present. Consequently, the proposal would not diminish the significance or setting of the NDHAs within the wider farmstead. No harm to the identified NDHAs would therefore arise, and the development would preserve both their setting and their significance.

To conclude, the proposed development would meet the requirements of the Framework and [name].21 and DM.23 of the LP, of which the requirements of have been discussed earlier within this decision.

The appeal site is within the Green Belt. The Framework sets out at Paragraph 154 that development within the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate other than for certain exceptions. Paragraph 154 (h) of the Framework notes that such an exception includes other forms of development provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. These forms of development include the re-use of buildings provided that the building is of permanent and substantial construction.

Policy DM.22 of the LP notes that within the Green Belt, certain forms of development will be permitted. This includes the re-use or conversion of buildings in accordance with the policies for such changes. Additional tests to the Framework and Policy DM.22 of the LP can be found at Policy DM.29. This is concerned with the re-use and adaptation of rural buildings where a criterion, amongst other matters, is met. To cut to the specifics of the issue, the Council note conflict with Part 1 a and c and Part 4b.

Part 1a states that the building must be a permanent structure, of a size which makes them suitable for conversion without the need for additional extensions, substantial alterations, significant building works or complete reconstruction, or the addition of any new buildings within the curtilage. As noted in the officer report, the subject building would not require substantial alterations, significant building works and nor would it introduce any new buildings into the appeal site.

It is asserted that the proposal includes an extension. The space where this would be constructed is currently enclosed by a roof canopy that is physically attached to the building. As such, whilst it would extend the internal floor space of the property, the scheme would not project beyond this canopy or extend further into the Green Belt. Rather, it would enclose an area that is already covered and visually read as part of the building through an infill of this space. The overall footprint and coverage of the structure would therefore remain unchanged. This represents a material and critical distinction between the appeal proposal and a typical extension that increases the built form beyond its existing envelope. Given the modest and contained nature of the infill, I consider the works to constitute an acceptable form of alteration in the context of a residential conversion. Accordingly, Part 1a is satisfied.

Part 1c requires the proposed development to safeguard heritage assets and the pattern and form of the buildings within historic farmsteads. [name] have not found conflict, or any harm associated with the proposed scheme, with regard to its effect upon NDHAs, I draw on the same conclusions and conclude that Part 1c is also met.

Part 4b notes that in addition to the criteria set out in Part 1, proposals for residential use must demonstrate that the proposals do not involve the conversion of domestic outbuildings. The proposed development relates to the conversion of a garage which is related to [site address] . Therefore, the proposal would be in direct contradiction to this policy.

I now turn to the matter of openness as required by Paragraph 154 (h) of the Framework. This is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt which can have spatial as well as visual aspects. The proposal would create a small infill of the area under the canopy covered area. Spatially, this would create further additional built footprint in purely numerical terms. However, in visual terms, the proposal would infill a covered area under an existing roof canopy. This canopy is visible in its existing form. The infill of these walls would not further extend beyond this canopy structure and into the Green Belt. In practical terms, there would be no visual intrusion into the Green Belt due to the confinement of these building works below an existing canopy structure. This would not visually reduce the openness of the Green Belt and therefore the proposed development would preserve it.

The Council suggest that the development would double the daily noise and activity associated with the appeal site. This would increase the amount of artificial light, increased traffic movements and a two-fold increase in domestic garden paraphernalia. In its existing form, any light spill can be generated, at any time of day, from the interior lighting provided within the outbuilding. Therefore, I am not convinced that this would result in a reduction in openness. The proposal would indeed result in a greater number of vehicle movements and more garden paraphernalia. However, I am not persuaded that this alone would have a harmful effect on openness, when I note the significant presence of residential properties and their associated paraphernalia within the surrounding area along [address] and Kinverdale.

To conclude, I am satisfied that the proposal would re-use a building which is of permanent and substantial construction which would preserve the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore, the proposal would meet the requirements of Paragraph 154 (h) of the Framework. With specific regard to the LP, the proposal would meet the requirements of Part 1a and 1c of Policy DM.29 of the LP. However, as it would involve the conversion of a domestic outbuilding, I must acknowledge the policy conflict with Part 4b of Policy DM.29. As such, in addition, this would lead to conflict with Policy DM.22 of the LP too.

[name] do not consider the proposed development to constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt when assessed against the provisions of the Framework, the scheme’s failure to comply with Policy DM.29 of the LP results in consequential conflict with Policy DM.22, which seeks to safeguard the Green Belt. Policy DM.22 states that such development will not be permitted except in very special circumstances. The Framework further clarifies that very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt, together with any other identified harm, is clearly outweighed by other material considerations.

To begin, despite the conflict with Policy DM.22, I question the actual harm that would be caused by this conflict. This is due to the absence of harm or conflict found elsewhere within my assessment of the main issues within this appeal, particularly in Green Belt related matters. As such, I am of the view that the harm which would be experienced through the conversion of a residential outbuilding within the Green Belt in this instance would be extremely limited. The absence of harm to the NDHAs and to the Green Belt when assessed against the Framework are material considerations which add to the weight of this particular case, albeit minor.

The appeal site is also not particularly isolated given its position near to other residential properties. This is a factor which also attracts minor weight. I further note that the Council does have a notably healthy housing land supply position. Nevertheless, this is not a ceiling. In an era of overall national housing shortages, I am of the view that one property, where its harm or conflict with policy in other areas of the case would be notably absent, is a factor which too attracts minor weight in my consideration of this scheme.

One must also be cognisant of the benefits of construction, albeit limited in a case such as this, through the provision of work and the procurement of materials. The future occupants of the proposed development would also utilise shops and services found within the wider area once the works are complete. These matters too attract minor weight in consideration of this scheme.

Overall, although taken individually these are very small-scale positive factors which attract minor positive weight, I find in combination that these other considerations clearly outweigh the conflict with Policy DM.22 and the perceived harm that might occur to the Green Belt as a result. These factors significantly contribute to the planning balance and outweigh the conflict with the LP. I therefore conclude that very special circumstances exist which justify the proposed development.

The Council did indicate which conditions it wanted to be considered in the event that the appeal was allowed. In assessment of these conditions, I have undertaken minor changes to meet the six tests and I have consulted the parties on this wording.

In addition to the statutory time condition [1], a condition specifying the approved plans [2] are justified in the interests of certainty. I have also imposed a matching materials condition [3], which is necessary to safeguard the character and appearance of the area. The Council did suggest that a similar condition be imposed during the appeal. However, this included a strand which related to the recommendations of a submitted approved Heritage Statement as required by a later condition. This condition has not been imposed and therefore, this strand of this suggested condition has been omitted. The reasons for this omission shall be discussed later within my decision.

A condition which requires the vehicle parking spaces to have been provided in accordance with a relevant drawing number [4] is necessary to ensure that an appropriate parking facility is in situ prior to the occupation of the dwelling. I note the contention by the appellant that this condition should not be imposed as these facilities are already in situ. However, it is necessary that these spaces are retained for the lifetime of the development and ensure that these areas are not used for anything other than the parking of vehicles.

I have included a condition which requires the details of any external lighting to be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority [5]. This is necessary in the interests of reducing light pollution given its Green Belt position. However, it is not necessary to follow the recommendation by the Council to demonstrate that it will not impact on ecological networks. I am cognisant that in its existing guise, lighting could be added to the building at any time. I am not convinced that a development of this limited size, on what is a relatively small building, would result in the production of an external lighting arrangement that would be harmful to ecological networks. The condition would still require the details of any lighting to be submitted, and therefore, the Council would retain control over this aspect of the proposal.

A condition which requires a window to be fixed shut and obscurely glazed [6] and a restriction on the construction working hours [7] is necessary to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. With regard to condition 7, I have removed the suggestion by the Council in that no burning of material shall take place on site. In reading this element of the suggested condition, whilst this relates to construction time restrictions, this suggests to me that no burning would ever be permitted, such as through the use of BBQs or firepits. This would be unreasonable. The imposition of conditions which require the details of how the building will be designed to achieve a specific water efficiency standard [8] and incorporate energy from renewable or low carbon sources [9] is necessary in the interests of sustainability.

A condition restricting the permitted development rights of the appeal site [10] is necessary to protect the openness of the Green Belt. A key issue in this appeal concerned Part a of Policy DM.29 of the LP, which governs the re‐use and adaptation of rural buildings. The Council considered the proposed infilling beneath an existing canopy to constitute an extension. However, my assessment concluded that whilst it would extend the internal floor space of the property, the works would simply enclose an already covered area, with no change to the building’s overall footprint or coverage. This distinction separates the proposal from an extension that would project further into the Green Belt, which would have had a greater pronounced effect upon openness. This led me to the conclusion that it would meet the requirements of Part a of Policy DM.29 of the LP. Consequently, restrictions on additional buildings, extensions, fencing, or similar works beyond the extents of the building in question are necessary to ensure that any future proposals affecting openness can be appropriately assessed prior to construction.

Two conditions have not been imposed despite their recommendation by the Council. The first is that a Heritage Statement that considers the impacts of the proposed use upon the NDHAs is submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. However, in having a balanced view as required by the Framework, this proposal would not result in harm to these assets. As such, the suggested condition to consider such impacts would not be necessary.

The second suggestion which was omitted related to the submission of a hard and soft landscaping scheme. The reasons given for this condition was to soften the appearance of the development, to safeguard the character and appearance of the area and to demonstrate biodiversity net gain. Firstly, the external changes proposed to the building in question, including the provision of a rear terrace, are limited overall. I also note that in the officer report, it is concluded that the scheme would be exempt from the provisions of biodiversity net gain. When these reasons are collectively considered, it has not been sufficiently demonstrated as to why such a condition would be necessary.

In conclusion, the proposed development would be in conflict with the LP. However, once other material considerations are deliberated and taken into account, I find that the very special circumstances needed to outweigh the conflict with LP do indeed exist. Therefore, I find that permission should be granted and the appeal should be allowed.

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 following drawing numbers: • WHB-SA[20]0001 (Site Location and [name]) • WHB-MA[20]0002 (Ground Floor Plan as Proposed) • WHB-SA[20]0003 (Site Plan as Proposed) • WHB-MA[21]0003 (Elevations as Proposed (Sheet 1)) • WHB-MA[21]0004 (Elevations as Proposed (Sheet 2))

The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the vehicle parking spaces have been provided in accordance with drawing number WHB-SA[20]0003. Thereafter those spaces shall be retained for the lifetime of the development for the parking of vehicles only.

Details of any external lighting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the building is occupied. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to first occupation/use of the development hereby approved, the window to the study area shown to the southern, side elevation shall be fixed shut and obscurely glazed for the lifetime of the development.

No construction or demolition work shall commence outside of the following hours: • Monday to Friday: 07:30 - 18:00 • Saturday 08:00 - 13:00 • No works shall take place on Sundays and bank or public holidays.

Prior to the first occupation of the development, details of how the dwellinghouse will be designed to achieve a water efficiency standard of 110 litres per person per day shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented and fully operational prior to the first occupation of the residential unit and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

Prior to the first occupation of the development, details of the means by which the development will incorporate energy from renewable or low carbon sources equivalent to at least 10% of predicted energy requirements shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved details shall be implemented and fully operational prior to the first occupation of the dwellinghouse and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by virtue of [name], B, E and F of Part 1 of Schedule 2 and Class A of Part 2 Schedule 2 of the Order shall be undertaken.