Appeal 6002581

The appeal is dismissed.

During my site visit I noted that development has already taken place in line with the submitted plans. I have assessed the appeal on this basis.

The main issues are: • whether the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt, and; • whether any 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 development.

The appeal site is within the Green Belt whereby Policy M12 of the Dartford Plan (2024) outlines that inappropriate development will be resisted in accordance with national planning policy. The policy lists several criteria for the assessment of proposals including in relation to the extensions of buildings. It states that extensions to buildings remaining in the same use will be permitted where, they are proportionate and subservient in appearance, bulk, massing and scale of the original building, and would not result in a disproportionate addition to the original building.

This is broadly in line with the Framework, which allows for the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The glossary within the Framework defines an original building as, “a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was built originally.”

It is clear from the evidence before me that the host dwelling was constructed as a replacement dwelling, originally granted planning permission in 2015 before the permission was amended in 2017. Conditions were attached to both of these permissions removing permitted development rights including for extensions, alterations and the construction of outbuildings. The house as built is the original building in the context of the baseline for which extensions and alterations should be assessed.

It is not entirely clear when the outbuilding referred to as the summerhouse was built. The building to which this appeal relates forms a link joining the summerhouse and the main dwelling.

My attention has been drawn to an appeal1 elsewhere in the borough where the Inspector dealt with a similar form of development for a link building between a dwellinghouse and an outbuilding. [name] do not have the full details of that case before me, I see no reason to take a different view from the previous Inspector in reaching the conclusion that, even if the outbuilding was built prior to the dwelling, through the link connection to which the appeal before me relates, the outbuilding has become an extension to the dwelling.

The Framework does not prescribe how proportionality should be assessed. The Council has calculated that the cumulative volume of both the link building and the summerhouse is a 41% increase above the volume of the main dwelling, a figure which the appellant has not disputed. The cumulative footprint of the link building and the summerhouse is significant in the context of the original dwelling. Despite the single storey height, I find that the combination of additional footprint and volume represents a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. The development therefore fails to be an exception to inappropriate development against paragraph 154 c) of the Framework.

I have considered the other exceptions to inappropriate development outlined in both Policy M12 of the Dartford Plan and the Framework. The Council consider that the appeal site falls within the definition of grey belt land. I see no reason to take a different view on this matter. To be regarded as not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, development in the grey belt must meet all the criteria set through paragraph 155 of the Framework.

Based on the extent of the site, the appeal development does not affect the ability of all the remaining Green Belt across the area of the plan from serving all five of the Green Belt purposes in a meaningful way. I therefore find no direct conflict with criterion a.

Criterion b. refers to there being a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. Notwithstanding the private benefits to the appellant which I refer to below, I have not been presented with any substantive evidence which amounts to a demonstratable unmet need for a link building between an 1 APP/T2215/D/22/3295132 decision dated 12 June 2023 outbuilding and the main dwelling. On this basis, the development fails to satisfy all the criteria of paragraph 155 of the Framework and therefore cannot be considered as not inappropriate development in the grey belt.

Paragraph 142 of the Framework outlines that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Openness can have both spatial and visual aspects.

The appeal development itself is small scale in nature representing a modest footprint. It has nevertheless introduced built form to part of the appeal site which was previously void of built form. The development therefore represents harm to the spatial openness of the Green Belt.

Noting the building is self-contained within the curtilage of the existing dwelling and largely screened by existing landscaping, I consider that the effect on both the spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt is limited. Nevertheless, the development erodes the openness of the Green Belt, which is one of its essential characteristics. I therefore conclude that the development does not preserve and therefore has a harmful effect on the openness of the Green Belt. This carries substantial weight as per paragraph 153 of the Framework.

I understand that the building was constructed to prevent the ingress of water into the subterranean swimming pool. However, I cannot be satisfied that there are not less harmful means of achieving this aim and therefore I have attached this consideration limited weight.

The development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt which also causes harm to the openness of the Green Belt. I attach substantial weight to the associated Green Belt harm. The Framework indicates that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The other considerations put forward carry at most limited weight. It follows that the substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm is not clearly outweighed by other considerations in this case. Therefore, the very special circumstances required to justify the development do not exist. The development does not accord with the Green Belt aims of Policy M12 of the Dartford Plan or the Framework.

I note that the Council has raised no issues from a purely design perspective. No concerns have been raised in relation to the effects of the development on the living conditions of neighbouring properties, highway safety or the effect on climate change. [name] find no reason to take a different view in relation to these matters, they do not weigh in favour of the development.

For the above reasons, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, the appeal is dismissed.