Appeal 6002528

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: (a) whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies; (b) the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; (c) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and (d) If the proposed development is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposed development.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) stipulates that development in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate unless it accords with one of the exceptions set out in the Framework. The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and that any harm should be given substantial weight. Policy DP10 of the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: [name] 2014 (TLP) is broadly consistent with the Framework’s objectives of seeking to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development

There is no dispute between the main parties that the proposed development does not fall within any of the exceptions identified in the Framework nor those in Policy DP13 of the TLP, which relates to new buildings in the Green Belt. Accordingly, I find that the proposed development comprises inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It is therefore at odds with the provisions of the Framework, and in Policies DP10 and DP13 of the TLP which seek to prevent harm to the Green Belt.

A fundamental aim of Green Belt policy, as set out in paragraph 142 of the Framework, is to keep land permanently open. This openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt and has a spatial and visual aspect.

The proposed gate would be supported by brick piers either side, as well as further pedestrian gate and pier, which itself would necessitate a stone retaining wall. This would all be set back from [site address] and given the angle of the driveway and existing boundary planting, would be more evident when travelling from north to south along the road.

I have also had regard to the design of the gates, in which the railings are more widely spaced than on the previous proposal. I also acknowledge that the gates themselves would be less extensive and set further into the site than previously proposed.

Nonetheless, the proposed development would introduce new boundary treatments, which would not only enclose the site entrance but would be more substantial features than currently exist at the site frontage. Whilst these changes would be limited and localised there would nonetheless be a small but noticeable loss of openness as a consequence of the additional built form proposed.

This would be contrary to the guidance in the Framework as well as the provisions of the development plan which seek to protect the openness of the Green Belt. As per Paragraph 153 of the Framework, any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness, attracts substantial weight.

The site is said to be within the ‘Special Residential Character Area G: [name], which forms a transition between Woldingham village and the open countryside beyond. Houses in the vicinity are generally large and detached, with some having separate garages/outbuildings. They are set well back from the road and within their own sizeable plots. Front boundaries of plots on [site address] are generally delineated by planting or landscaping, with few entrance gates or similar means of enclosure being evident. This all contributes to a semi-rural character in which the verdant landscape remains the dominant feature.

The appeal site positively contributes to the existing character of the area. The front boundary is largely defined by existing hedging, which is supported by a very low stone retaining wall. The existing entrance to the site is open, offering views of the front grassed area, as well as the site’s southern boundary and countryside beyond. The host dwelling is set to one side of the driveway, helping to limit its prominence in views from the road.

In contrast, the proposal would be a prominent and distinctive feature, positioned on rising ground, which would introduce a strong sense of enclosure, firmly separating the site from the road outside. Despite the proposed hedgerow planting and the revisions since the previous appeal decision, the current proposal would be incongruous in the street scene and out of keeping with the other boundary treatments in the vicinity, which generally echo the more open, semi-rural characteristics of the area.

I therefore find the development harmful to the character and appearance of the area. As such, it conflicts with the requirements of Policies CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008, Policies DP7 and DP9 of the TLP and Policies L1 and L3 of the Woldingham Neighbourhood Plan 2016 which amongst other things, seek to ensure that development respects and reflects local character, integrates well with the surrounding local area, including its landscape.

The proposal is said to comply with the provisions of Policy DP9 of the TLP which is considered to represent a very special circumstance. However, I have not found the scheme to comply with Policy DP9.

Similarly, the proposal is said to comply with paragraphs 142 and 143 of the Framework. I have not found the scheme to comply with paragraph 142 as it would cause harm to Green Belt openness. Even if the development were not to contravene any of the five purposes of the Green Belt set out in paragraph 143, this is an expectation for development to be considered acceptable and so does not weigh positively in favour of the proposal.

The proposed development would not have an adverse effect on neighbouring occupiers. However, this represents an absence of harm rather than a benefit and so is a neutral factor in my decision.

I have concluded that the appeal scheme would be inappropriate development that would, by definition, harm the Green Belt. It would also result in limited harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Paragraph 153 of the Framework requires substantial weight to be given to any harm to the Green Belt.

Consequently, such development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. In order to constitute very special circumstances, the circumstances cited in support of a proposal must not just outweigh the harm to the Green Belt but clearly outweigh it. I have considered the matters put before me in favour of the scheme. However, for the reasons given, I conclude that these other considerations as presented and when taken together do not clearly outweigh the substantial weight I have afforded to the Green Belt harm. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development have not been shown to exist in this appeal.

The development is contrary to the Framework and to the development plan when taken as a whole. I have considered all other matters raised but none outweigh the conclusions I have reached. For the reasons set out above, I dismiss the appeal.