Appeal 6002330

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The application was submitted retrospectively, and I saw during my site visit that the development, subject of this appeal, had been carried out. I have considered the appeal accordingly. In addition, the scheme was originally described as ‘conversion of garden room to habitable space ancillary to main house’. The one in the banner above reflects an agreement between the main parties prior to the decision and more accurately describes the development.

As part of the Council’s enforcement investigations, the internal layout of the building subject of the appeal included two bedrooms, a kitchen and living area and a shower room with WC. This broadly accords with my observations on site, although the smaller bedroom was in use as a gym. Notwithstanding the original description, the appellant suggests the outbuilding is a garden room erected under permitted development rights and it provides a spare bedroom for visiting family and friends and an office. No reference is made to a conversion. I saw nothing on my site visit to suggest that a conversion has taken place. Indeed, having regard to the spatial relationship between the internal layout and the positioning of the windows and external doors, it is more likely that the outbuilding was designed and purpose-built for its current arrangement.

The main issues in regard to the appeal are a) whether the scheme is inappropriate development in the Green Belt; b) its effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and c) whether any 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 is a two storey detached dwelling positioned towards the front of a generous plot, set adjacent to a rural lane outside Ormskirk. To the rear of the dwelling, within one corner of the garden and set on a patio area, stands a modern flat-roofed single-storey outbuilding labelled as an ‘annex’ on the submitted plans.

Policy GN1 of the West Lancashire Local Plan Development Plan Document 2012- 2027 (the Local Plan) indicates that proposals in the Green Belt will be assessed against national policy and any relevant Local Plan policies. The National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) sets out a closed list of exceptions to development not being inappropriate in the Green Belt. None of which relate to the appeal scheme, taking the background above into account. I can therefore make no conclusion other than that the development is inappropriate. In accordance with Paragraph 153 of the Framework, this is harmful to the Green Belt by definition. By association, this finding would mean conflict with the Green Belt protection aims of Policy GN1 of the Local Plan.

The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. Specifically, their openness and permanence. Openness is a fundamental characteristic of the Green Belt, encompassing both spatial and visual aspects.

By occupying land that was previously undeveloped, the outbuilding has inevitably diminished the spatial openness of the site. Its upper sections are visible above the garden’s hedge and fence boundary treatments when viewed from the surrounding flat, open landscape, including from the adjacent lane. As a result, there has been a noticeable reduction in both dimensions of the Green Belt’s openness. This would be further harm to the Green Belt in addition to that caused by the development’s inappropriateness.

I attach very limited weight to the appellant’s assertion that the appeal building benefits from permitted development rights. There is no substantive corroborating evidence to this effect such as a certificate of lawfulness. In addition, and taking my earlier comments into account regarding site observations and the Council’s explanation regarding its construction and use, it would appear that the building would fall outside of the allowances under the relevant class. Additional office space and a spare bedroom would be private benefits and thus worthy of limited weight.

The Council points the degree of separation between the outbuilding and the host dwelling, and its internal layout, which supports primary living functions, as indicating that it is capable of independent occupation. The appellant disputes this and maintains that its use is, and will remain, ancillary to the host dwelling. Even if I were to favour the appellant’s position, a solely ancillary use would nevertheless fail to meet any of the exceptions set out in Paragraph 154 of the Framework. The harms I have found would remain.

The substantial weight that is attracted by the Green Belt harms I have found would not be clearly outweighed by the limited weight that would collectively be ascribed to the other considerations. Such that the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. The development conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations, including the approach of the Framework, which indicate an outcome otherwise Accordingly, I recommend that the appeal be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.