Appeal 6002415

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • if the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, 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 property is situated within the Green Belt. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Paragraph 153 identifies that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless an exception applies.

Policy CP3 of the Tonbridge and Malling Borough Core Strategy (2007) (CS) sets out that National Green Belt policy will be applied within the areas identified as Green Belt. Paragraph 232 of the Framework is clear that development plan policies are not necessarily out-of-date just because they pre-date the Framework and that due weight should be given to them, according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. Policy CP3 allows for the consideration of the most recent Framework in the context of the Green Belt and therefore is consistent with it. On this basis I have afforded significant weight to CS Policy CP3.

The Council has assessed the proposal against exception c) of paragraph 154 of the Framework. However, the appellant contends that exception g) applies. This sets out that development within the Green Belt is not inappropriate if it amounts to the limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land whether redundant or in continuing use which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

In relation to the proposed garage, the policies of the development plan do not detail any circumstances in which an outbuilding is to be treated as an extension to a building. However, simply because the garage is not directly attached to the host dwelling is insufficient to conclude it should not be treated as an extension for the purposes of paragraph 154. Whether the proposed structure would amount to an extension of the existing building is a matter of fact and degree.

The proposed garage would be set within very close proximity to the host dwelling, with its front and rear building line aligned to the existing extensions, with its scale appearing subordinate to the host property. The garage would therefore appear intimately related to the host property and form a cohesive singular group rather than appear as a distinct separate entity. The garage would therefore be a normal domestic adjunct and as such be considered as an extension to the host property in the context of paragraph 154 of the Framework. In these circumstances, the proposed rear extension and garage would extend a single existing residential property and would therefore not infill a gap or partially re-develop a site. As such, exception g) of paragraph 154 would not apply.

Exception c) of paragraph 154 sets out extensions or alterations of a building would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt, provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

The Council has set out that the dwelling had an original footprint of 28m2. In addition, it sets out that the previously approved extensions increased the footprint to 107m2, equivalent to a 382% uplift. Furthermore, the Council considers that the proposal would extend the footprint by an additional 71m2, resulting in a cumulative uplift of 635% footprint compared to the original 1. I have not been provided with any alternative measurements by the appellant, and I have no evidence before me to disagree with the figures provided by the Council.

The proposal, in combination with previous additions, would add substantial and comprehensive bulk, scale and massing to the dwelling. The appeal proposal in particular would further add to the side and rear where the width and depth would be significantly enlarged well beyond the size of the original building. As a result, the appeal proposal would result in disproportionate additions compared to the original dwelling. The development would therefore be inappropriate development within the Green Belt which is by definition harmful. 1 Proposed rear extension footprint 29m2 and proposed garage footprint 42m2.

The Planning Practice Guidance identifies various factors which can be taken into account when considering the potential impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt2.

The proposal would introduce additional bulk and massing to the appeal property which would result in a larger dwelling, adversely affecting both visual and spatial openness. However, due to the fairly enclosed context of the appeal site set within [address], and domestic scale of the development, the harm to openness in visual and spatial terms would be limited. Nevertheless, it would be contrary to the objectives of the Framework of keeping land permanently open.

The appellant highlights that under the initial planning permission3 for the development of the land around [address], the originally consented extensions for [site address] were larger than those which were subsequently approved and implemented under a further application4. In particular a rear two storey element was omitted from the later application. However, it is clear that the originally approved extensions have not been implemented at the site. I have no evidence before me demonstrating that this original permission could still be implemented and has not lapsed. In addition, it has not been demonstrated that this fallback position would be a more harmful position than the appeal scheme. Furthermore, these original extensions were considered in the context of a comprehensive re-development of the wider site meaning the circumstances of that application compared to the appeal before me are not comparable. For these reasons, these previous extensions would only carry very limited weight as a fallback position or precedent at the site.

An example at [address] for a single storey extension and garage has also been brought to my attention5. However, the evidence is clear that in this case the Council considered the garage to be ‘distinctly separate from the host dwelling’6, meaning it benefited from an exception relating to limited infilling of previously developed land. In addition, the Council found the extension to not be disproportionate and therefore benefitted from the relevant exception. The specific circumstances of the appeal before me are therefore not directly comparable to this case.

In addition, an example at [address] for a garage granted by the Council has also been brought to my attention7. The evidence shows that in this case, the Council considered the development to be inappropriate Green Belt development, but very special circumstances existed to justify the development. However, each proposal should be considered on its individual merits, which I have done so in this case. The existence of this example does not mitigate or otherwise justify the harms that I have identified in relation to this scheme, nor would it represent a specific benefit of this appeal proposal which would weigh in its favour. 2 Paragraph: 013 [name]: 64-013-20250225 3 LPA ref 08/03638/FL 4 LPA ref 13/00727/FL 5 LPA ref TM/21/00005/FL 6 Paragraph 6.6 of the associated [name] 7 LPA ref TM/15/03358/FL

The appellant highlights that many of the other properties within [address] benefit from garages. However, the existence of other garages within the area does not alleviate the specific harms that I have identified in relation to inappropriateness and openness.

The provision of a garage and an extension would improve the living conditions of the occupiers of the appeal property through the provision of additional floor space. However, this is a personal benefit of the scheme and it therefore attracts limited weight in favour of the development.

The appeal site is set within the setting of [address], a Grade II Listed Building. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, requires that I have had special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting.

Based on the evidence before me and my observations on site, the significance of the asset relates to its historical merits as a rural manor house, along with the specific architectural merits of the property itself. [site address] was the former gatehouse and therefore contributes to the setting of the property in this regard.

Due to the extensive modern additions in place at the appeal property and within the wider [address], along with the retention of the appeal property at the gate to [address], the proposed domestic extensions and garage within this context would not adversely affect the surroundings in which the asset is experienced. As such, the setting of [address] would be preserved and cause no harm to the significance of the heritage asset. This would weigh neutrally within the balance.

The appeal site is situated within the North Downs National Landscape (NDNL). Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act (2000), as amended by section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act (2023), requires relevant authorities to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes. Based on my observations on site, the special qualities of the NDNL include a tranquil and rural landscape featuring rolling fields bound by woodland with development scattered throughout the landscape in an informal basis. The appeal site would have a neutral contribution by appearing as a part of a residential grouping of properties situated within the wider rolling landscape.

The proposed garage and extension would be of a domestic scale and form and therefore would be seen in the context of the host property. They would not appear prominent within the landscape and as such, the proposal would conserve the natural beauty of the NDNL. This also weighs neutrally within the balance.

An interested party has highlighted the proposal would be in keeping with the other surrounding houses, and the Council has not raised an objection on the basis of the effect of the proposal on character and appearance. However, this lack of harm is not a benefit in itself and is therefore a neutral consideration in the balance.

As mentioned, paragraph 153 of the Framework identifies that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

The proposal would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would result in limited harm to openness. Paragraph 153 of the Framework sets out that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness.

There are no other considerations which clearly outweigh the harms I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. As such the proposal would conflict with Policy CP3 of the CS.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.