Appeal 6001753

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing single storey dwelling and erection of two storey detached dwelling at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, ref 25/0480/FUL, subject to the conditions set out below.

The main issues are: - Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, including effects on openness; and - Effects on the privacy of occupants of the neighbouring property, [address].

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The Framework establishes that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of the exceptions listed at paragraph 154 applies. It is the appellant’s case that the most relevant exception to this proposal is at 154g). This allows for limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

Having regard to the definition of PDL in the Framework, the Council find that the area on which the current bungalow sits is PDL, but the associated garden is not. Based on the evidence and the findings of my site visit, the rear garden area is clearly associated with the bungalow, being linked visually and functionally as its private garden area. The Framework’s definition includes the curtilage of the developed land and as such, the appeal site in its entirety can therefore be considered as PDL.

It is therefore necessary to consider whether the effects on openness would be substantial. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) identifies factors that can be taken into account when considering the potential impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt. This includes, but is not limited to, visual and spatial aspects, duration and degree of activity.

The openness on this side of [site address] comprises a patchwork of large, open fields, divided by some hedgerows and ditches. There are nonetheless a series of buildings and structures adjacent to the western edge of [site address] , of which the appeal site forms a part. This includes [address], a prominent development of two storeys plus rooms in the roof, and the neighbouring two storey property, [address]. As a consequence of this building line there are lesser feelings of openness on this part of [site address] . The existing bungalow on the appeal site however, contributes to the appreciation of openness through its low level and open spaces around the building, which provide some transition to the open spaces to the north and west.

The main parties agree the volume of the building on the site would increase from approximately 370m3 to 745m3. The eaves and ridge heights of the building would also notably increase to 5.3m and 8.6m respectively. As a consequence, there would be a reduction in the spatial aspect of the Green Belt’s openness. A visual reduction in openness would also occur given the increase in the height and footprint of the building. Given the site would remain occupied by a single dwelling, any significant increase in degree of activity, or its duration, would be unlikely.

For these reasons in combination, the proposal would inevitably entail a moderate reduction in the Green Belt’s openness. However, given the position of the dwelling would remain similar to the existing, and having regard to its context, the proposal would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. For this reason, the proposal would conform to exception g) of paragraph 145.

The proposal would therefore meet one of the exceptions to inappropriate development set out in the Framework. The reason for refusal refers to Policy GB1 of the Local Plan 1998 (the LP), although the replacement of a building is not among the development types which it relates to. Notwithstanding my concerns for its consistency with the Framework, it is therefore not apparent that it applies to the appeal scheme. Policy GB4 of the LP relates to rebuilding of existing dwellings in the Green Belt, however, it is not clear from the evidence how the proposal would conflict with that policy, particularly given the Council’s finding that the proposal is acceptable in terms of its effects on the character of the area. Given the provision in the policy for consideration of unimplemented permitted development rights in considering volume, I find the proposal to comply with that policy.

I observed that the rear garden of [address] is already overlooked to some degree by the windows of [address] to the south. The proposal would include a large balcony, spanning the width of the building at the rear first floor level. Even though the balcony would be within 9m of [address], the drawings include privacy screens to either side of the balcony, which would prevent its users having views towards that property. Views would instead be directed to the west, across the rear garden of the appeal site to the fields beyond. Even if some visibility into the rear garden of [address] were possible, this would be at its far end, away from the house, and at oblique angles.

For these reasons the proposal would not cause a harmful loss of privacy. The proposal would comply with policies EC2, EC3 and EC4 of the LP which include that proposals should not have significant adverse effects on residential amenity. Given the distance of the balcony from [address] there would be a degree of conflict with RDG5 of the Council’s Residential Design Guide 2013, however the proposed screens would sufficiently minimise its effects and I therefore give that conflict little weight. Neither do I find conflict with RDG8, which relates to design quality.

The appellant has raised multiple other considerations, including details of a fall-back position. However, as the proposal is not reliant on very special circumstances it is not necessary to consider these matters further. I have had regard to the comments of an interested party that include concerns best addressed outside the planning system and I note the red line boundary of this proposal was amended to reflect site ownership. Similarly, concerns relating to the earlier proposals for extensions to the bungalow lie outside the remit of this appeal and, as above, the success of this appeal does not rely on the prospect of those extensions otherwise being built.

Further to the north of the site is the grade II listed [address]. I observed the surrounding rural landscape to form an important part of its setting, but today that setting also includes the established buildings along this part of [site address] , including the appeal site. Given the existing built form and intervening open space and structures, including the adjacent garage, the proposal would preserve its setting. Having regard to the statutory provisions1, the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the listed building.

The site is also close to the [name] designated habitats sites. As the proposal entails the replacement of a house, rather than any net increase in dwellings, and having regard to the information before me, the proposal would not have likely significant effects on the specific qualifying features of those sites.

The Council have suggested conditions that it considers would be appropriate in the event that the appeal were allowed. I have considered those in light of the relevant tests for conditions and adapted them where necessary to ensure compliance with the Planning Practice Guidance.

As well as the time limit condition, the approved drawings are listed to provide certainty, and details of materials should be submitted to the Council to preserve visual amenity. Given the flood risk of the site and to ensure the safety of future occupants, details of flood resistance measures including a Flood Response Plan are necessary. Where relating to construction, those conditions need to be pre- 1 Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 commencement to ensure the measures are integral to the building. To maintain privacy, the privacy screens facing [address] should also be maintained.

Given the existing use of the site, and as the Council note the site is not in a critical drainage area or area of elevated surface water flood risk, it is not apparent that a condition requiring details of new sustainable urban drainage meets the test of necessity. Given the nature of the highway here and in the absence of substantive reasons for them, I do not find conditions relating to retention of the parking as shown, or specifications for the new access, would be necessary. Similarly, other restrictions on the use of the highway would not be reasonable here, given it lies outside the appeal site. Given the varied front boundaries along this frontage, I do not find it necessary to control the front boundary treatment. Issues relating to demarcation of land to the north is a matter for the relevant landowners. I have not removed permitted development rights as specified, given the presumption against this approach in the Framework and in the absence of any strong reason for it.

For the reasons given, the proposal would comply with the development plan as a whole and the appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos P02/A and P05/F.

No development shall commence (except demolition and site clearance) until details have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, to demonstrate that the new structure can withstand the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic pressures likely to be acting on the building in a 1 in 200 year and 1 in 1000 year flood risk event. The development shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with the approved details.

No development shall commence (except demolition and site clearance) until a scheme of flood resistant and flood resilient construction methods for the new dwelling have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the installation of any facing materials, details shall first be submitted to, and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out only in accordance with the approved details.

Prior to the first occupation of the new dwelling, details of a Flood Response Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Upon occupation, the Flood Response Plan shall be enacted and maintained at all times.

The flat roof to the rear of the building hereby approved shall not be used at any time as a terrace or balcony until a privacy screen has been installed to its southern side in accordance with the details shown on drawing P05/[name] privacy screen shall be maintained at all times thereafter. End of Schedule