Appeal 6001258

The appeal is dismissed.

The site address and description above are taken from the appeal form which is the same as the decision notice. These differ from the application form, but more accurately describe the proposal and the site location.

The main issues are: • whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and, • if the proposal is found to be 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 required to justify the development.

The appeal site is located in the Green Belt. Policy GB1 of the Coventry City Council Local Plan, 2017 (the LP) states that inappropriate development will not be permitted in the Green Belt unless very special circumstances exist and that proposals will be assessed against national planning policy.

The Framework sets out that development within the Green Belt is inappropriate, except for the types of development listed in paragraphs 154 and 155. There is no case, from either main party, that the proposal would meet any of the Framework exceptions. Therefore, the appeal proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt that has spatial as well as visual aspects. A fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to keep land permanently open, as set out in the Framework.

The appeal site includes a recently erected dwelling and its associated external amenity areas, located to the rear of properties fronting [address]. The proposed garage would be located to the south east of the dwelling and adjacent to the boundary of the appeal property. The eastern boundary is defined by a tall brick wall and a single storey outbuilding associated with a neighbouring property adjoins the boundary to the south. There are further outbuildings located to the east of the site in a neighbouring garden.

In this context, there would be limited views of the proposed garage from neighbouring properties, and it would not be prominent from public views on [address]. The proposed garage would be located close to existing built development and would not extend further into the Green Belt than other buildings in the vicinity. The proposal would therefore have a limited effect on visual openness.

Nevertheless, the proposal would result in built development where there is currently none and so it would result in a loss of spatial openness. The Council’s case indicates that the purpose of the Green Belt in this location is to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Based on the information submitted and my observations on site, I have no reason to disagree. Accordingly. whilst limited in size, the proposal would represent a form of encroachment into the countryside causing moderate spatial harm.

The main parties agree that the proposal would be acceptable in terms of its design and impact on the street scene. Additionally, there is no objection from the Council with respect to the proposal’s effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers nor on highway safety. Based on the evidence before me, including my observations on site, I see no reason to reach an alternative conclusion on these matters. Nevertheless, the absence of harm in these respects, weighs neutrally in the planning balance.

I acknowledge an interested party’s support for a garage to serve occupiers’ parking. However, this would be a largely private benefit, to which I attach limited weight. Moreover, the presence of other outbuildings in the vicinity of the site would not justify the proposal nor would this consideration justify further harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and it would harm openness, to which the Framework requires me to attach substantial weight. As set out at paragraph 153 of the Framework, inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances (VSC). VSC will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the harm identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. The proposal would, therefore, also conflict with LP Policy GB1, as set out above.

The proposal conflicts with national policy set out in the Framework to protect the Green Belt. There are no other considerations that outweigh that conflict and for this reason the appeal is dismissed.