Appeal 6001727

The appeal is dismissed.

The appellant agreed to amend the original description of development at the validation stage of the application. Accordingly, the description of development set out above has been taken from the Council’s decision notice, rather than the application form, as it reflects the agreed version.

As elements of the scheme have already been completed, the proposal is partly retrospective. I have assessed the appeal scheme accordingly, having regard to the submitted plans.

The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and the development plan policy, including, where appropriate, the effect on openness; • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the Thornton/Queensbury Landscape Character Area; and • If the development would be inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.

The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling located on the western side of [address], at the northern edge of Lightcliffe. The site lies within the Green Belt and has been subject to several works which aimed to change the use and appearance of the land to residential garden. Immediately to the north of the dwelling, a patio and an engineered, levelled area of lawn have been created, achieved in part through regrading and the formation of a grassed embankment. An outbuilding has been erected alongside this levelled area, positioned adjacent to the site's western boundary. These works formed part of two schemes, which were refused planning permission1.

The proposal seeks retrospective permission for the change of use of land from paddock to residential garden of part of the land to the north of the dwelling and the installation of post and rail fence. The approximately 1.2 metre-high post and rail fence would bound the rear and eastern side of the land that is proposed to be retained as residential garden. The remaining land to the north of the property, beyond the proposed garden area, is to be regraded and returned to natural grassland. The proposal also includes the retention of the outbuilding.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework lists the types of development that are not considered inappropriate in the Green Belt. These include, for the purposes of the appeal scheme, d) the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces, h) ii. engineering operations, and h) v. material changes in the use of land (such as changes of use for outdoor sport or recreation, or for cemeteries and burial grounds), provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

Although part of the outbuilding is proposed to be used in conjunction with the appeal dwelling, given its Green Belt location outside the lawful residential garden of the dwelling, and the fact that it seeks to replace a former outbuilding which was sited wholly within the paddock area, I consider that paragraph 154 c) exception is not applicable in this case.

The appellant’s submission indicates that the outbuilding would be partly in the proposed residential garden and partly in the paddock and would be used for storage in relation to both uses of land. I have very limited information before me with regard to the former outbuilding. In the absence of substantive evidence regarding the former outbuilding, particularly plans to show its specific dimensions, the appellant failed to demonstrate that the outbuilding is not materially larger than the former outbuilding that it seeks to replace. Furthermore, it would clearly not be fully in the same use as the former outbuilding. While the character and appearance of the outbuilding that is part of this appeal scheme were previously found acceptable2, that conclusion was outside of the specific Green Belt policy context. Accordingly, the outbuilding does not meet the paragraph 154 d) exception. Therefore, it is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which, due to its scale and siting, has a modest spatial and visual impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

Although the proposal seeks to retain only the part of the land closest to the dwelling as residential garden, the change of use together with the proposed installation of post-and-rail fencing, would lead to a more domestic character and a 1 LPA refs: 22/01323/FUL & 22/01324/FUL; Appeal refs: APP/A4710/W/23/3322471 & APP/A4710/W/23/3322913. 2 Appeal ref: APP/A4710/W/23/3322471 degree of encroachment when the site is viewed from the surrounding countryside, including the public footpath. Given the topography of the land, the scale of the proposed garden coupled with the potential for further domestic features or paraphernalia typically associated with garden use, would have a modest spatial and visual impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

The proposed change of use would lead to an encroachment of residential use into the Green Belt, conflicting with one of its fundamental purposes: to safeguard the countryside from encroachment. The fact that the area is modest in size, particularly in relation to what has been previously proposed as part of the former application, does not negate the inherent harm arising from the material change of use and the introduction of domestic character into Green Belt land.

I have had regard to the depth of the garden of the adjoining property No [address] (No 29), to which I return under the ‘Other consideration’ section below. While the proposed garden area would adjoin No 29’s garden to the east, this alignment in relation to No 29 does not justify the proposed encroachment, as the proposal would still push the residential envelope into the countryside based on the established Green Belt boundary. Accordingly, the proposal would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt and would conflict with one of the purposes of including land within it. Therefore, it does not meet the paragraph 154 h) exception.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would conflict with the aims of Policy GB1 of the Calderdale Local Plan 2018/19 – 2032/33 adopted 2023 (LP), which seeks to protect Green Belt from inappropriate development, and those of the Framework.

The appeal site comprises the paddock land located immediately to the north of the appeal dwelling, which forms part of the wider Green Belt, contributes to the area’s rural setting, and provides a buffer between built form and the wider countryside.

The patio area directly north of the appeal dwelling is closely associated with it. However, the appeal proposal extends domestic garden use noticeably beyond this area, introducing a larger expanse of levelled lawn that would be enclosed with a post‐and‐rail fence. Although such fencing is rural in character, the combination of a domestic lawn, the patio area, and the increased propensity for domestic items to be placed within this space would alter the visual character of this part of the site.

Given the site’s slightly elevated and open position, these domestic influences would be perceptible from the adjacent public footpath. The contrast between the managed domestic lawn and the surrounding rougher grassland and paddock character would be visible, such that the extension of garden use would be experienced as a modest but noticeable encroachment of suburban features into paddock land.

As a result, the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the immediate area, primarily as experienced from close-range views along the public footpath and in the localised setting of the site. This harm derives from the incremental suburbanisation of land, notwithstanding the limited scale and low height of the physical works.

Turning to wider landscape effects, the appeal site forms part of the Thornton/Queensbury Landscape Character Area (LCA K1: [name]). This landscape is identified in the Calderdale District Landscape Character Assessment and Review of Special Landscape Area Designation as one containing a mixed agricultural and urban‐fringe mosaic, with features such as horse paddocks, varied field sizes, post‐and‐wire or stone‐wall boundaries, and the presence of modern development and infrastructure. These characteristics indicate that the landscape accommodates a mixture of rural, semi‐rural and domestic land uses, with localised variations in landscape pattern and quality.

Against that context, the proposal, though introducing modest domestication adjacent to the dwelling, would not alter the broader landscape pattern or its key characteristics. No field boundaries of landscape significance would be removed, long‐range views would remain unaffected, and the proposal would not erode the openness, settlement setting or intervisibility that contribute to the LCA’s wider character. While the proposal would not harm the LCA, this does not negate its impact on the character and appearance of the area, as identified above.

Accordingly, the proposal would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and thus, would conflict with the aims of [name] HS1 and BT1, which collectively require developments to respect and enhance the character and appearance of area. The proposal would also fail to achieve the aims of the Framework, which requires developments to be sympathetic to local character.

Given my findings above with regard to the effect of the proposal on the LCA, there is no direct conflict with the aims of LP Policy GN4, which seeks to protect [name].

The Framework states 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.

I have had regard to the planning history for the adjoining property No 29 as a material consideration. The evidence before me confirms that No 29 benefits from a lawful development certificate (LDC) for an extended residential garden. While the appeal proposal would similarly extend the residential curtilage northwards to align with the garden boundary of No 29, the two cases are not directly comparable, particularly due to the difference in their type of applications. The LDC for No 29 was granted on the basis of lawfulness and therefore did not involve an assessment of the planning merits. In addition, the Planning Officer report relating to the subsequent boundary wall and gate at No 29 makes clear that this development was assessed in the context of the already enlarged garden established under the LDC. Accordingly, the planning history of No 29 does not alter my findings on the appeal scheme, which I have determined on its own planning merits and site-specific circumstances.

The appellant contends that the original size of the garden is disproportionately small in relation to the size of the dwelling. My attention has been drawn to LP Policy BT2, which seeks to achieve adequate amenity space, and it is argued that the proposal would comply with this policy. Be that as it may, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that when granting permission for the appeal dwelling, the Council failed to consider the extent of its garden or regarded it as insufficient. In the absence of such evidence, while the proposal would offer the appellant a larger area of private outdoor space, I attach limited weigh to this private benefit.

I have had regard to paragraph 149 f) of the Framework, which requires Green Belt boundaries to be clearly defined by permanent and readily recognisable physical features. Although the appellant questions the logic of the boundary as it relates to the appeal site, the alignment of Green Belt boundaries cannot be revisited through a section 78 appeal. My assessment was therefore made on the basis of the boundary as it currently stands and in accordance with the relevant Green Belt policies. Having considered the submitted evidence and my own site visit observations, I have reached the conclusions above on the proposal’s merits and the particular circumstances of the site.

To conclude, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which would, by definition, be harmful to the Green Belt. It would also cause harm to the openness of the Green Belt and would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. I give substantial weight to the harm to the Green Belt, in accordance with paragraph 153 of the Framework. Despite having regard to all the other considerations put before me, I consider that taken together, the factors cited in its favour do not clearly outweigh the overall harm the scheme would cause. Consequently, very special circumstances do not exist, and the proposal conflicts with [name] GB1, HS1 and BT1, and the requirements of the Framework.

I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns over the Council’s handling of the application. However, this is not a matter that I can consider under a Section 78 planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of the proposal.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no other material considerations worthy of sufficient weight to suggest the decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.