Appeal 6002025

The appeal is dismissed.

The Council have provided me with a number of policies from within the Development Plan. I have taken these into account only insofar as they are relevant to the determination of this appeal.

The main issues are: • the location of the proposed use with particular regard to the relevant spatial strategy of the development plan; • the effect of the proposed use on the character and appearance of the countryside; and • whether there are other material considerations sufficient to outweigh any harm identified in respect of the first and second issues.

The host property is a detached dwelling located on a corner plot at the end of a modern cul-de-sac. The appeal site is a parcel of land forming part of a larger paddock to the rear of the garden. The land in question would extend the rear garden into the paddock by approximately 10 metres.

The boundaries of the garden are demarcated by a close boarded fence approximately two metres high along the side boundary adjoining 4 [name], a close boarded fence approximately one metre high along the opposite side boundary (which is adjacent to a field) and no boundary treatment along the rear boundary, which was open to the paddock at the time of my site visit. The main paddock is enclosed with a combination of post and rail or wire fencing, all approximately one metre in height.

The land surrounding the site and the paddock is agricultural in nature with established hedges defining the field boundaries and several mature trees evident. Its topography is gently undulating with the land level notably rising up towards the footpath located to the west.

The host property and appeal site are outside any settlement boundary defined in the Development Plan (DP) and is, therefore, considered to be in the countryside. The DP makes provision for new development in the countryside provided it constitutes a use which justifies, and is compatible with, a countryside location.

The proposal would result in the garden projecting a significant distance beyond the rear boundaries of the adjacent dwellings and would more than double the size of the existing garden. I note from the appellant’s evidence that the gardens of 5 and 6 [name] appear to have been extended beyond their original boundary, however the Council have confirmed these have not had the benefit of planning permission and I noted from my site visit they have been extended a considerably shorter distance than what is proposed here.

The [site address] Neighbourhood Plan makes provision for small-scale garden extensions in the rural area. I do not consider the proposed increase in size to be small-scale. For these reasons, the appeal site is not an appropriate location and conflicts with the development plan.

As such, I find conflict with policy GD3 of the Harborough Local Plan (2011-2031), which seeks, amongst other matters, to protect the countryside from unacceptable development that would harm its intrinsic value and rural character, and the Development Management SPD (2021), which resists garden extensions that would result in a prominent boundary or would conflict with the [site address] Neighbourhood Plan (2015-2031).

The character and appearance of the paddock and surrounding fields is open and rural. Views of the appeal site would only be achievable from the rear and side-rear aspects of the property.

The Council, in their evidence, have indicated that the proposal would be visible from a nearby footpath. At my site visit, I walked the specific length of that footpath near the site, and was unable to obtain any clear, uninterrupted views of the ground level of the appeal site, only the rooftop.

Due to the undulations of the land, therefore, public views of the appeal site would be limited and I give the effect on character and appearance less weight for this

Nevertheless, it is inevitable that enclosing the rear garden as proposed would result in an extended garden boundary that would project significantly beyond the rear boundaries of the neighbouring gardens. The appellant states that fencing would continue in the same style but, as there are three or four different styles and heights of fencing evident around the existing garden and paddock, this information is inconclusive.

Whilst no evidence has been put before me to indicate what materials, form or height the boundary treatment would be comprised of, it would result in an encroachment into the countryside. I agree with the Council that, once established as garden, it is likely that more domestic paraphernalia would appear resulting in further harm to the rural character. I acknowledge the appellant says the garden will not be used in this way but planning conditions could not be enforced to ensure this.

The appellant contends there would be no change to the openness, character or appearance of the countryside. I do not agree with this as the nature of enclosing part of the paddock would result in such change and would, by its nature, be harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside. However, given the topography of the surrounding land levels, views of the site would be restricted from most public vantage points and the amount of resulting harm is considered to be limited.

As such, I find conflict with policy GD8 of the Harborough Local Plan (2011-2031), which seeks, amongst other matters, for development to respect its local context and be integrated into the wider environment and existing built form.

The proposal is intended to provide enlarged outdoor space for the enjoyment of an occupant of the property who is disability. Disability is a protected characteristic. The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) at section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 requires me to have due regard to eliminating discrimination, advancing equality of opportunity and fostering good relations. [name] am mindful of the needs of the occupant, it has not been demonstrated that their needs cannot be met by a less harmful scheme. Therefore, the PSED considerations do not outweigh the harm that I have identified, and following careful consideration of these matters, I am satisfied that the impact of dismissing this appeal is proportionate and justified.

It may be possible for a less harmful scheme to achieve the balance between meeting the needs of the occupant and delivering a small-scale garden extension that would not unduly harm the character and appearance of the rural environment but that is not what I have in front of me and any alternative would be the subject of a new planning application.

In the event of any subsequent re-application for planning permission, the appellant should be aware that an ecology survey establishing the presence or otherwise of [name] would need to be submitted at the same time as any planning application.

I have taken account of the appellant’s proposal to install a bird box but I do not consider that this alone sufficiently outweighs the harms identified above.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.