Appeal 6002481

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: i) whether the development is inappropriate in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and local policies; ii) the effect of the development on openness; and iii) whether the harms to the Green Belt, and any other harms, are clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the development.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate. However, it goes onto identify a number of exceptions to this. One such exception is the replacement of a building provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. Policy EE14 of the Runnymede Local Plan (2020) reflects this and adds that in assessing this, account will be taken of existing and proposed floorspace and built footprint. Although the appellant suggests the proposal would not be materially larger than a detached building granted planning permission previously1, the assessment must be made against the building it would replace, not an alternative scheme.

The proposed garage would replace an existing garage with storage space in its pitched roof. The Council advise the existing garage has a footprint of just over 30m2 and a floorspace of 47m2, and that the proposal would be about 55% larger in footprint and roughly 27% larger in floorspace. The appellant does not dispute 1 [name].18/1833 these measurements. On this basis the proposed garage would be materially larger than the existing garage. I accept that dimensions may not always be determinative and that it is a matter of judgement. Nonetheless, in this case, I consider the uplift in both footprint and floor area is such that the proposed garage would clearly be materially larger than the building it would replace.

The proposal would therefore represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would conflict with policy EE14 and the Framework as set out above.

Openness is often assessed spatially and visually. In spatial terms the garage would occupy a greater amount of space than is currently occupied by the existing garage. There would therefore be spatial harm to openness.

Visually, the garage would be located at the end of the driveway which falls from the road. Ottershaw Park is a private estate and the site is at the end of a cul-de-sac within that. It therefore has little in the way of passing vehicle or pedestrian traffic. Moreover, the presence of houses to the south and woodland to the north means the site is not prominent in wider views. Nonetheless, the existing garage is visible from the road, above the fence on the boundary with No.8, and above the hedge on the northern boundary of the site. As the proposed garage would be higher in terms of eaves and ridge heights, and wider, it would be more visible than the existing garage when seen from the road. The proposal would therefore have a harmful impact on visual openness too.

The harm to openness would be modest given the small scale of the garage and its limited visual prominence.

The detached building granted planning permission previously was not too dissimilar to that now proposed. But that permission was not implemented and is no longer extant. Although the appellant suggests that it constitutes a powerful fallback position, I give little weight to it. For that previous scheme to be realised, it would require a fresh planning permission and as the application would be considered against a different local policy framework, the outcome could not be assured. In any case, even if it was an extant planning permission, the current proposal would be taller than that and so would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and so would be of no benefit in Green Belt terms.

The Council raise no objection to the design of the development or its impact on the street scene, and it is clear it would not project into open countryside being partly positioned where there are paving slabs. However these are all neutral considerations that would be expected of any development here. Furthermore, whilst it may facilitate home working, I have no evidence to demonstrate that this is not already currently possible at No.7.

The development would be inappropriate in the Green Belt and would cause modest harm to openness. Nonetheless, paragraph 153 of the Framework says that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. The other considerations set out above do not clearly outweigh the harms to inappropriateness and openness and so do not amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the development.

The development conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no other considerations that indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.