Appeal 6001382

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant certified certificate A ownership with the planning application. Although the Council questioned its accuracy in relation to whether all proposed works lie within the red-line boundary, this is not a matter I need to address further as the appeal is being dismissed.

The main issues are:  Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, including the effect on openness and purposes of the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies;  The effect of the proposal on trees; 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 proposal.

The appeal site is within the Green Belt. Policy CP11 of the [name] 2011 (the [name]) states that there will be a general presumption against inappropriate development that would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt, or which would conflict with the purpose of including land within it. This aspect of the policy remains consistent with the essential characteristics and purposes of the Green Belt as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework).

The Framework sets out certain exceptions where development in the Green Belt is not inappropriate development. Part h. of paragraph 154 of the Framework allows for other forms of development provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. This includes engineering operations.

Within the appeal site, there is a sloping bank containing vegetation and several trees. To accommodate the proposed extension, this bank would need to be cut into. The proposed front‐elevation drawing indicates that a retaining wall would be in place. However, in the absence of technical drawings, such as existing and proposed site sections and levels plans, the extent of engineering operations required is not clear.

The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Openness can be perceived both spatially and visually. The introduction of an engineered structure would create new built form where none presently exists, resulting in some loss of spatial openness. Removing trees and vegetation, combined with the addition of a hard, vertical surface, would create a more urbanised appearance. However, it is recognised that the retaining wall would not be particularly visible from public views. Taken together, these changes would result in both a visual and spatial loss of openness to the Green Belt, albeit to a limited degree due to the modest scale. Nevertheless, this would fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt, and the use of sympathetic materials would not overcome this harm.

Although it is stated that planting would take place over time, no further details have been provided. The scale and depth of excavation would directly determine what landform would remain, what planting could be accommodated, and whether any meaningful soft landscaping could be achieved. As the full extent of the excavation works is unknown, landscaping details cannot be secured by a planning condition.

The appellant has confirmed that the proposal would be within the curtilage of the appeal site, which is reflected on the proposed block plan. There is no substantive evidence before me to dispute this. The proposal would therefore not result in encroachment into the countryside. Whilst the proposal would not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, this does not diminish my overall conclusion that it does not preserve the openness of the Green Belt.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not meet the exception listed at part h. of paragraph 154 of the Framework. It would therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would conflict with Policy CP11 of the [name], the purposes of which are set out above. It would also conflict with the objectives of the Framework in keeping Green Belt land permanently open.

The vegetated bank contains several very tall trees that provide visual continuity with the adjoining woodland. Although there is no Tree Protection Order in place, collectively, these trees contribute to the established woodland character of the appeal site and reinforce the natural landscape setting of the surrounding area. The Council set out in the [name] that the bank appears to support several mature trees, and there is no detailed information before me to counter this.

The appellant indicates that trees have already been removed. During my site visit, it was evident that some trees had indeed been cut down, although a number of trees remain along the bank. However, in the absence of any arboricultural assessment or supporting drawings, it is not possible to determine whether further tree removal would be required to accommodate the proposal, nor whether the trees that are intended to be kept could realistically be safeguarded and continue to develop without harm. Given this uncertainty, I cannot conclude that the remaining trees would continue to function as a cohesive woodland group or that they would maintain the existing character.

Although the appeal site benefits from roadside vegetation, because of the rising bank and the height of the trees, it means that the trees are still likely to be visible from a public vantage point. The appellant’s willingness to accept a planning condition requiring replacement tree planting elsewhere on the site is acknowledged. However, such planting would not occupy the same position within the landscape nor replicate the established contribution of the trees in this part of the site, whose value arises from their grouping, location and integration with the wider woodland. In the absence of detailed arboricultural information, I am not satisfied that this harm could be adequately mitigated by condition.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would cause moderate harm to trees. Accordingly, it conflicts with Policy DM6 of the Development Management Policies Local Development Document 2013 (the DMPLDD). This policy, amongst other things, requires development proposals to retain as many trees as possible, be designed in such a way that allows trees to grow and demonstrate that existing trees will be safeguarded and managed during and after development in accordance with the relevant [name].

The Council raised no objection in respect of design, impact on neighbours, highways and parking provision and the size of the rear amenity space. However, compliance with relevant national and local planning policies on these matters would be required in any case. These are therefore neutral matters and neither weigh in favour nor against the appeal scheme.

The reason for refusal cites conflict with Policy DM2 of the DMPLDD, which concerns the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt. As the refusal relates solely to the engineering operations, this policy is not determinative. In the same regard, the Supplementary Planning Guidance No3 - Extensions to Dwellings in the Green Belt August 2003 is not relevant.

Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 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 proposal would be inappropriate development in the terms set out by the Framework. As required by the Framework, substantial weight is given to this harm. The proposal would also cause moderate harm to trees. Against this harm, there are no other considerations that are afforded weight in support of the appeal. Consequently, very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

The proposal would conflict with Policy CP11 of the [name], Policy DM6 of the DMPLDD and the objectives of the Framework.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.