Appeal 6001746

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by the appellant against the Council. This is subject of a separate decision.

On my visit I saw that the existing farmhouse remains in situ and the approved replacement dwelling1 has not yet been constructed. Therefore, while the description of development set out on the application form, and replicated within the banner heading above, refers to the conversion of the approved dwelling, no such building exists and therefore cannot be converted. Consequently, I am unable to consider the appeal proposal as a conversion.

Based on the submitted plans and my observations on site, the proposal would involve the construction of a pair of semi-detached dwellings, a detached double garage, hardstanding for vehicle access and parking, and private amenity space for each dwelling. I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The Council’s first reason for refusal relates to the accessibility of the appeal site and whether the proposal would direct development to a sustainable location in accordance with the Council’s spatial strategy. It makes specific reference to Paragraphs 109-110 and 115-117 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in this regard.

The Council’s second reason for refusal relates to whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The assessment for this at Paragraph 155 (c) of the Framework includes determining whether the 1 Planning Application Reference: 22/00100/FUL development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of the Framework.

To avoid repetition, I have therefore considered the Council’s first reason for refusal alongside my assessment under Paragraph 155 (c) of the Framework.

In this context, the main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to any relevant development plan policies and the Framework, including whether the appeal site would be an appropriate location for the proposal with regards to the Council’s spatial strategy for the area, with particular regard to its accessibility to local facilities and services; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • on the basis that the proposal would be inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to very special circumstances required to justify the development.

Policy GB1 of the South Staffordshire Council Core Strategy (2012) ([name]) permits development acceptable within the terms of national planning policy set out in the Framework where it meets specific criteria. This includes new buildings, but only in certain circumstances. The proposal would not meet any of the listed exceptions and would therefore conflict with this policy.

Notwithstanding this, the approach taken in Policy GB1 of the [name] is not wholly consistent with national policy, as it does not reflect the full range of development that may be regarded as not inappropriate within the Green Belt under Paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework, nor does it acknowledge the potential for very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development. Given this, I can only afford limited weight to Policy GB1 of the [name]. In this regard, I attach greater weight to the policies of the Framework, which are more up to date than those of the [name]. I have assessed the appeal on this basis.

Paragraph 154g) of the Framework identifies the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (including a material change of use to residential or mixed use including residential), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), to not be inappropriate in the Green Belt, provided it would not cause substantial harm to its openness.

I understand that the former buildings on the appeal site, now demolished, were in agricultural use. On this basis, the Council considers that only the existing farmhouse constitutes previously developed land as defined in Annex 2 of the Framework, a position not disputed by the appellant. The Existing/[name] and Block Plan indicates that the approved replacement dwelling would extend onto land formerly occupied by these agricultural buildings. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not amount to the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land and would not comply with Paragraph 154(g) of the Framework.

Turning to Paragraph 155 of the Framework, there is no dispute between the parties that the proposal would utilise grey belt and satisfy criteria (a) and (b). Although the Council’s second refusal reason refers to the scheme undermining the Green Belt purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment, the officer report indicates that the appeal site makes only a limited contribution to this purpose, being surrounded by open fields and some distance from built-up areas. The construction of two dwellings would therefore not amount to unrestricted sprawl or undermine the purposes of the Green Belt as a whole. Based on the evidence before me and my observations on site, I can find no reason to reach a different conclusion.

In terms of Criterion (c), while the appeal site is located close to [site address] and not far from the edge of Wolverhampton, access to it is via [site address] , a narrow unmade rural track with no streetlights. The track would not provide an appealing route for pedestrians or cyclists. Despite there being a low number of vehicles using the track, which can only travel at low speeds due to its unmade condition, pedestrians and cyclist would still likely feel vulnerable and unsafe, especially those with children and those who are less mobile. There are also no bus stops nearby. Given this, future residents of the dwellings would be heavily reliant on the private car to access day-to-day services and facilities, rather than more sustainable forms of transport. This is not disputed by the appellant, who acknowledges the appeal site to be isolated, lying at a notable distance from other dwellings and physically separate from any settlement.

I recognise that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport solutions will vary between urban and rural areas. I also accept that, in this case, the net increase of one dwelling would represent only a modest amount of development with a limited increase in vehicle movements. Nonetheless, the proposal would neither limit the need to travel nor provide a genuine choice of transport modes. I am therefore of the view that the development would not be in a sustainable location.

Accordingly, the proposal would not comply with criterion (c) of Paragraph 155 of the Framework. It would therefore constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The proposal would also conflict with Core Policy 1 of the [name], which seeks to direct development to the most accessible and sustainable locations, and to safeguard the Green Belt from inappropriate forms of development. While development that accords with the [name] would be supported in principle, the proposal would not comply with that strategy, as it is not a type of development permitted outside the main settlements and local service villages identified in the policy.

The proposal would be appreciably larger than the existing farmhouse and, together with the double garage, would take up considerably more open space. I note the Council’s assessment that public views of the proposal would be limited. However, I saw on site that, it would be visible from the surrounding countryside, [address], properties on [address] and, despite the roadside hedge, various points along [site address] . Although the proposal would replace an existing building and would not introduce development into an otherwise open field, it would nonetheless increase the extent of built form on the appeal site. The Council refers to proposed planting along the northern boundary, which would, over time, screen and soften the appearance of the proposed dwellings from that direction. However, I am mindful that landscaping should be used to integrate a development with its surroundings and not to screen a development that would otherwise be unacceptable. Overall, I am of the view that the proposal would result in significant harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

From the evidence before me and my observations on site, it is not entirely clear whether the permission that was previously granted at the appeal site for a replacement dwelling has been implemented within the required time limit. However, even if I was to consider the approved replacement dwelling as a fallback position, its effect would be less harmful than the appeal proposal.

While the appeal proposal would exhibit the same bulk, scale and massing as the approved replacement dwelling and the total number of bedrooms would not significantly increase, it would result in the creation of an additional residential unit. The introduction of two separate households would give rise to a greater likelihood of independent daily routines, deliveries, and visitors than would typically arise from a single family dwelling.

The proposal would therefore be likely to result in increased levels of activity across the site, including a greater amount of garden paraphernalia, additional parked vehicles and increased vehicle movements. Moreover, while certain types of fencing could be erected under permitted development rights and any additional fencing could be controlled by condition, the formation of two separate dwellings would inevitably increase the likelihood of further enclosure arising to provide each property with private garden space.

Consequently, the proposal would diminish the openness of the Green Belt to a greater extent than the approved replacement dwelling. Although the additional harm to openness would not be considerable, the proposal would nonetheless introduce an additional dwelling in a location with inherently limited accessibility. As such implementation of the proposal over the fallback position would not have an effect that would be broadly the same or better than the proposal and therefore does not weigh in favour of granting permission.

The appellant considers that the Council has failed to attribute appropriate weight to the possibility that, once the approved replacement dwelling is constructed, planning permission could be sought to subdivide it into two separate units. It is argued that the subdivision would comply with the circumstances set out at Paragraph 84 of the Framework, which support the development of isolated homes in the countryside.

Nonetheless, even if such a future subdivision were pursued, it would require a separate grant of planning permission once the approved replacement dwelling had been constructed. It is not within my remit to prejudge the outcome of any subsequent application. The subdivision of the approved replacement dwelling can therefore not be factored into the fallback position.

In terms of benefits, the proposal would deliver a net increase of one dwelling. The Council cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The latest land supply position was 0.87 years, which is a chronic shortfall. Given this, although modest in scale, the proposal would make a meaningful contribution to the district housing supply. Also, as a small site, it could be built out relatively quickly. I therefore afford the delivery of the additional dwelling significant weight in my decision. The proposal would also result in modest economic and social benefits arising from the construction and occupation of the dwellings.

I have found the proposal would constitute an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt and would result in significant harm to its openness. The Framework indicates that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. In addition, the appeal site has limited accessibility, and the scheme would conflict with the Council’s spatial strategy as set out in Core Policy 1 of the [name].

Although the proposal would deliver significant benefits, these are not sufficient to clearly outweigh the substantial weight afforded to the harm arising from inappropriateness and the openness of the Green Belt, and the additional harm I have identified. Accordingly, very special circumstances do not exist to justify the development.

Given the identified shortfall in the Council’s housing land supply, the provisions of paragraph 11(d) of the Framework fall to be considered.

The appellant has drawn my attention to two appeal decisions2 in which the provision of a dwelling was afforded sufficient weight to allow the appeals. However, those cases are not directly comparable, as they did not involve development that was inappropriate in the Green Belt or which caused harm to openness. Consequently, they attract limited weight.

In this case, I have found that the appeal proposal would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would cause significant harm to its openness. Consequently, the application of policies in the Framework that protect the Green Belt provides a strong reason for refusing the development proposed.

Accordingly, for the reasons set out above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan read as a whole. Having had regard to all other relevant material considerations, it has not been demonstrated that there are any of sufficient weight to indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.