Appeal 6001619

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form indicates that the development applied for was carried out and completed in 2021. Whilst this may be the case, it is my role to determine this appeal on the basis of the submitted plans which is what I have done.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it; • Whether the 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, a two-storey detached dwelling is situated within a cul-de-sac in the Wigan urban area. The evidence on site indicates that the rear garden has been extended, with an opening inserted into what appears to have been the original hedged rear boundary, into a woodland area within the designated Greater Manchester Green Belt.

The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework further sets out that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless an exception applies. One such exception at paragraph 154 h) is other forms of development provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. One under sub-paragraph v. are material changes in the use of land (such as changes of use for outdoor sport or recreation, or for cemeteries and burial grounds).

Policy JP-G9 of the Places for Everyone Joint Development Plan 2022 to 2039 (PfE) (adopted 21 March 2024) (‘the LP’) is broadly consistent with the Framework in that it states that the Green Belt serves the five purposes set out in national policy and development can be achieved without harm to its openness, permanence or ability to serve its five purposes.

The appeal scheme seeks a change of use for part of what was woodland to use an extended private residential garden. The appellant contends that the use of a garden amounts to outdoor recreation use. Whilst the appellant seeks to rely on case law1 that outdoor recreation is a function of a garden and satisfies the exception contained within paragraph 154 h of the Framework (paragraph 150 (e) of a previous version of the Framework). The appellant’s interpretation of the case law is misplaced. Having regard to paragraph 39 of the judgment, [name]

“it also seems to me to be highly unlikely, if not to say incredible, that the SoS would have widened the category of not inappropriate change of use in the Green Belt to cover residential changes of use without making that absolutely clear. Any sensible reading of the context can only lead to the conclusion that the uses permitted were to be read as being very closely aligned to the examples given.” She goes on in paragraph 40 to confirm that “...Residential changes of use do not fall within paragraph 150(e)...”

I do not consider that the above judgment supports the appellant’s position. Nevertheless, the appellant has highlighted two appeal decisions2 from 2021 and 2025 where the Inspectors found the change of use to garden associated with a residential property was an acceptable change of use. Be that as it may, I only have the appeal decisions themselves submitted so I do not have the benefit of the full details which were before the Inspectors determining these two cases. Furthermore, one pre-dates the 2023 case law and in the more recent case there is no evidence within the decision itself that the Inspector had sight of the caselaw in their determination. Consequently, I afford these two decisions only modest weight in my determination of this appeal.

In my assessment, having regard to case law, it must be concluded that the proposal is not covered by the exception under paragraph 154 h) v. It therefore constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt and I attribute substantial weight to this harm in accordance with the Framework, paragraph 153. 1 Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames v SSLUHC [2023] EWHC 2055 (Admin) 2 Appeal references APP/F0114/W/21/3277073; APP/A0665/W/24/3347732

Even if, the appeal scheme did fall within this exception, it would need to meet the secondary requirements in respect of the preservation of openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it to which I now turn.

Openness is an essential feature of the Green Belt. Consideration of openness can include both spatial and visual aspects. In the sense that this is development that has occurred beyond a residential boundary, where previously there appeared to have been none, there is a change to openness. In this instance, the appeal site comprises a lower-level garden extension with black sheeting held down by large stones on the ground, is defined by timber fencing with conifer hedging (a clear distinction from the adjoining woodland), planted on the inside.

The change of use of land in the appeal scheme could give rise to the potential for increased domestic paraphernalia to be located within it, which would provide a modest, but nonetheless perceptible loss of openness. These potential domestic changes to this land would cause moderate harm to the visual and spatial openness of the Green Belt in this location.

Even if an appropriately worded condition could be used to remove permitted development rights to erect outbuildings within the garden extension, I agree with the appellant that this could not relate to domestic paraphernalia such as a washing line, play equipment or garden furniture. Consequently, the use of a planning condition would not be sufficient to outweigh the harm identified to openness in this case.

Again, even if a suitably worded condition could be devised to meet the six tests, the appeal scheme would still conflict with two of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, namely, to check the unrestricted sprawl of the large built-up urban areas and to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment as set out in paragraph 143 a) and c) of the Framework.

Overall, for these reasons, the proposed development would fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt. It would also conflict with two of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, namely assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and checking unrestricted sprawl of the built-up area. The Framework requires that I apply substantial weight to those Green Belt harms.

The other considerations, including the management of the land for domestic purposes, its containment and incorporation into the residential property, the removal of an invasive plant, and the erection of the boundary fencing and gate as a permitted means of enclosure, do not clearly outweigh the totality of harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness, through its failure to preserve openness, encroachment into the countryside and urban sprawl that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan, when read as a whole and the Framework. Material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. Having considered all other matters raised, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.