Appeal 6002624

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single storey timber summerhouse at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/02333/FUL, and the plans submitted with it.

The summerhouse has already been erected, so I am considering the appeal retrospectively. I have removed the reference to retaining the building in my decision, as this is not an act of development.

The main issues are: a) Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) and relevant development plan policies, and b) The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

The Framework establishes that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless the development complies with one of the exceptions set out in Paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework. Paragraph 154 c) provides an exception 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.

Caselaw establishes that this paragraph is not to be interpreted as being confined to physically attached structures but that an extension can include structures which are physically detached from the building of which they are an extension. In this case, the summerhouse is within the garden of the host dwelling and is clearly associated to it. Although it is detached it provides an extension to the residential accommodation by providing space for a small artist studio within the garden. In this respect it is a normal domestic adjunct, and I am satisfied that it is reasonable to consider it against Paragraph 154 c) of the Framework.

As to whether it is a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building, the summerhouse is modestly sized and in the context of the host dwelling it cannot be considered a disproportionate addition.

Policy CS.10 of the Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy 2011 to 2031 (CS) provides an exception for small-scale extensions of a building. Supporting text to the Policy, referred to as Development Management Considerations states that key factors that will be taken into account include that a new curtilage building should be within five metres of the dwelling. The summerhouse is well over this distance.

This stipulation is provided within the context of an assessment of impact that would be caused to the openness and character of the Green Belt on a case by case basis. This approach is inconsistent with the Framework, as Paragraph 154 c) does not require the impact on openness to be considered. Impact on openness is implicitly taken into account in the exceptions provided by the Framework, unless there is a specific requirement to consider the actual effect on openness, which there is not for Paragraph 154 c).

It is however reasonable to consider the impact of the summerhouse on the character of the Green Belt more generally, keeping in mind that a fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to keep land permanently open as defined in the Framework.

The summerhouse stands in an open area of the appellant’s garden. It is on land that is higher than the dwelling and at the outer edge of the garden where it borders a paddock. Beyond the paddock the land opens out to an extensive and attractive area of historic parkland that has public access. There are various views of the summerhouse from the adjacent landscape. From the west it is seen in the context of the dwelling and the domestic character and appearance of the garden, which includes mature planting. In more extensive views from the north it is seen in a similar domestic context, with mature trees that significantly reduce its prominence even when not in leaf, as at the time of my visit. Furthermore, in views from the north the summerhouse is seen with the backdrop of the substantial garage.

The citing of the summerhouse could not be said to increase urban sprawl. It is a modest building that is seen in a domestic context with mature landscaping which means it is not prominent to view and does not appear out of place. The requirement to be within 5 metres is included within supporting text rather than a primary part of the Policy, and as such it does not therefore have the force of the Policy. It is relevant to the interpretation of the Policy, but it is not itself a policy and does not have the force of Policy CS.10. Thus, whilst the requirement to be within 5 metres provides useful interpretation, the failure to satisfy this additional criterion should not mean the development does not conform with Policy CS.10.

In summary, I am satisfied that the summerhouse is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt as it accords with Policy CS.10 of the CS and the exception provided by Paragraph 154 c) of the Framework.

The dwelling is a converted stables that forms part of a group of dwellings associated with [address]. The surrounding land, which would appear to be the historic parkland to the House, provides an open and attractive wider setting that is publicly accessible. From this environment the extent of development associated with [address], which includes the appeal dwelling, is well defined with a clear definition to the edge of garden areas and a difference in character between domestic planting and parkland trees.

Although it is at the outer edge of the garden area, the summerhouse reads as part of the developed area. It is not isolated as it stands amongst mature garden planting that includes early mature trees, which lessen its impact. It is seen in the context of the nearby garage and similar outbuildings that stand in comparable outer garden areas bordering the open landscape. It does not therefore appear out of place. It is of a design that is typical of a domestic outbuilding. It is suggested that this is not appropriate for its setting within the curtilage of a converted stable building, however the building does not present itself as a converted stable and has an ordinary domestic appearance. The building is finished in a pale and neutral colour that does not draw the eye.

In summary, the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the area. It would accord with [name].5, CS.9, AS.10, CS.12 and CS.20 of the CS, and Policies BE1 and BE2 of the [site address] Neighbourhood Development Plan 2011-31. Together these seek to ensure that landscape character is maintained, proposals are well designed to respect the current and historic relationship of the settlement within the landscape, and that outbuildings are appropriately scaled.

[address] is a grade II* listed building1. Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires the decision maker to have special regard to the desirability of preserving a listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. The Council is satisfied that the summerhouse does not harm the listed building or its setting. I have considered this based on a review of the evidence before me and my observations on site and am satisfied that it is not necessary to take an alternative view.

The Council did not suggest any conditions. As the work has already been carried out a time limit condition is unnecessary. A separate plans condition is also not necessary, and I have referred to the submitted plans within my decision.

For the reasons above, the appeal should be allowed.