Appeal 6002625

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether or not the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt; and • whether the appeal site is a suitable location for housing, having regard to accessibility of local services, facilities and sustainable modes of transport.

The appeal site is located within the Green Belt and comprises a detached, double garage within the garden area of the dwelling at no. [site address] . The proposal seeks to extend and convert this garage into a dwelling.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, with the essential characteristics of the Green Belt being their openness and permanence. The Framework goes on to state that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

The Framework establishes that development in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate, subject to a number of exceptions set out in paragraphs 154 and 155.

Paragraph 154 (c) of the Framework 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.

Similarly, exception 3. iii. of Policy PG 3 within the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2010 – 2030 (2017) (CELPS) allows for the extension or alteration of a building (in the Green Belt) provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

Furthermore, Policy RUR 11 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (2022) (SADPD) also states that extensions and alterations to existing buildings in the Green Belt will only be permitted where the proposed development would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

I therefore find that exception 3. iii. of CELPS Policy PG 3, and SADPD Policy RUR 11, are both consistent with the Framework.

Policy RUR 11 also goes on to explain that proposals will usually be considered to represent disproportionate additions where they increase the size of the original building by more than 30% in the Green Belt.

The appellant’s submission states that the footprint of the existing building is 44m2 and this would increase to 64.6m2. This results in an approx. 47% increase in footprint. In terms of volume, the submission details that the existing building is 151.5m3 and would increase to 315m3 as a result of the proposed extensions and alterations. This represents an approx. 108% increase in volume. Furthermore, the existing ridge height measures 4.5m and the proposal would have a ridge height of 6m, resulting in an approx. 33% increase.

In view of the above, as well as my observations of the appeal building on site, I find that the proposed extensions and alterations would represent disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The proposal would therefore not meet the exception at paragraph154 (c) of the Framework or criterion 3. iii. of CELPS Policy PG 3. It would also be contrary to SADPD Policy RUR 11.

Notwithstanding the above however, paragraph 154 (g) of the Framework allows for 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.

Criterion 3. vi. of Policy PG 3 within the CELPS also allows the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites in the Green Belt. However, this is provided that the proposal would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it than the existing development. Paragraph 154 (g) of the Framework therefore sets a higher threshold for Green Belt harm than criterion 3. vi. of CELPS Policy PG 3.

Paragraph 232 of the Framework makes it clear that due weight should be given to existing policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. In this regard, given that criterion 3. vi. of CELPS Policy PG 3 is not consistent with the Framework, this greatly limits the weight I can attach to it in the consideration of this matter. I have therefore relied upon the provisions of the Framework when assessing the appeal proposal against this exception.

The appellant claims that the appeal site represents previously developed land and this does not appear to have been disputed by the Council. Nonetheless, given that the appeal relates to a detached garage, a driveway and land that forms part of a residential garden outside of a built-up area, I find that the proposal would represent the redevelopment of previously developed land, as defined within Annex 2 of the Framework.

In accordance with paragraph 154 (g) of the Framework it is also necessary to consider what the impact upon openness would be, and whether the proposal would cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Openness is one of the Green Belt’s essential characteristics and Planning Practice Guidance advises that openness is capable of having both spatial and visual aspects.

The proposed increase in footprint and built form arising from the extension to the rear of the appeal building would alter the spatial openness of the Green Belt in this location. Furthermore, the increase in ridge height, footprint and volume of the appeal building would also have a visual impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

However, due to surrounding vegetation, and in particular the mature wooded area directly to the north, I observed that views of the appeal building are largely limited to close range views from [site address] and the adjacent residential properties. Furthermore, views of the proposed single storey extension to the rear would be predominantly obscured by the appeal building, the adjacent cottages to the south and the woodland to the north.

I therefore conclude that the effect of the proposed extensions and alterations to the appeal building on the openness of the Green Belt would fall short of substantial harm.

In terms of external areas and the proposed residential curtilage, I observed on site the area to the front of the existing garage is currently covered in gravel stones and used for the parking of a vehicle. Furthermore, the proposed rear garden area is currently utilised as a garden by the occupiers of [site address] . I therefore find the proposed dwelling’s residential curtilage would have only a minimal, if any, greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt in comparison to the existing situation.

In view of all the above, as a result of the proposed increase in ridge height, footprint and volume, I find the proposed development would have more of an impact on both the visual and spatial aspects of openness than the existing development on this site. The proposal would therefore not preserve openness.

Whether the harm to openness would be ‘substantial’ is however a matter of planning judgement. In this case, and for the reasons given above, I find that the overall degree of harm to the openness of the Green Belt arising from the appeal proposal would be limited to moderate, and therefore not substantial.

I have found that the proposed extensions and alterations would represent disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The proposal would therefore not meet the exception at 154 (c) of the Framework or criterion 3. iii. of CELPS Policy PG 3, and it would also be contrary to SADPD Policy RUR 11.

However, I have also found that the proposal would represent the partial redevelopment of previously developed land and would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the green belt. The appeal proposal therefore meets the exception at paragraph 154 (g) of the Framework and only one of the listed exceptions in paragraph 154 needs to be met for a development not to be inappropriate within the Green Belt.

Consequently, and in view of all the above, I therefore conclude that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, as defined by the Framework.

The appellant has drawn my attention to what they consider to be a fallback position relating to a previously approved1 application for “Extensions / alterations to the existing garage” at the appeal site. However, given that I have concluded that the appeal proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt it is not necessary for me to consider this matter further in respect of this main issue.

Given that the proposal would not amount to inappropriate development, there is no need for me to go on to consider whether very special circumstances exist in order to justify the development in the Green Belt.

According to the submitted evidence the appeal site is located outside any settlement boundary and is therefore within the countryside.

In order to achieve sustainable development CELPS Policy SD 1 states that development should, wherever possible, prioritise the most accessible and sustainable locations, and ensure that development is accessible by public transport, walking and cycling.

CELPS Policy SD 2 sets out a number of sustainable development principles and states that residential development will be expected to provide access to a range of forms of public transport, open space and key services and amenities. This policy then provides a table of recommended distances to several services and facilities.

Having regard to this table, the appellant’s submission details that there is a post box within 130m of the appeal site and this is within the recommended 500m distance.

The nearest convenience store however, which is also a post office, is The Country Store in Swan Green. I observed that this is a considerable distance from the appeal site and the appellant states it is approx. 2km away, or a 25-minute walk. The appellant does state that it is less than a mile if Public Rights of Ways (PRoWs) are used, however limited information has been provided in respect of the PROW route. Nevertheless, the distance from the appeal site to this shop would considerably exceed the guidance within the above-mentioned table.

Additionally, the evidence also demonstrates that the nearest bus stop (1100m), primary school (1300m), public house (1200m), children’s playground (830m) and train station (3500m) would all also fail to meet the distances recommended within this table.

[name] acknowledge that this table is only a guide, I also observed that there is no continuous footway or pavement from the appeal site to any of these services and facilities. Therefore, to access these services and facilities future occupiers would need to walk within the highway of [site address] , which does also not benefit from street lighting. This would be particularly difficult and hazardous in darker conditions, and for pedestrians with buggies and/or a disability. 1 Council Ref: 22/3282M

In coming to this view, I acknowledge that there are grass verges along sections of the highway, however these are narrow in places and would not be an attractive option for use all year round and in dark or adverse weather conditions. Additionally, these verges would again not be suitable for pedestrians with buggies and/or a disability. I therefore find that the appeal site is not well connected to services and facilities by foot, including the bus stops which provide access to a greater level of services and facilities within larger settlements.

I acknowledge that cycling to some services and facilities may be an option for some future residents but not necessarily an attractive alternative given the lack of separate cycle lanes / routes and street lighting. Additionally, not everyone has access to a bike or the ability to ride a bike.

I therefore find that walking and cycling to the existing limited range of services and facilities in the wider area, or using public transport to access the greater level of services and facilities available within larger settlements, are not realistic alternatives to the car for regular journeys.

As such, on the evidence before me and my own observations on site, I find that the appeal site would not represent a sustainable location for residential development in respect of access to everyday services and facilities. Future residents would therefore be heavily reliant upon the use of the private car.

The appellant has drawn my attention to planning applications for residential conversions that have been permitted by the Council at Cheers Green Farm2 and Corbishley Farm3. [name] am not beholden to previous decisions made by the Council, and each application must be judged on its own merits, I have reviewed the [name] provided by the appellant.

In respect of the approval at [address], I observed that this site is located close to the appeal site and therefore has similar sustainability issues to the appeal scheme before me. However, I note that it was approved in 2013 and therefore before the current development plan(s) was adopted.

I have limited information in respect of the exact wording and the requirements of the development plan policies that were relevant to the application at [address] when it was approved and can therefore make no direct comparisons to the current development plan policies before me as part of this appeal. Without this information I find that the adoption of a new development plan, since that planning application was permitted, could represent a significant change in circumstances.

In any case, I also note the [name] states that the site is “not located within a particularly sustainable location...”, but goes onto explain that “...the renovation of the barn would help to improve its historic fabric, restoring it back to a viable use and this would be of benefit to the general public, whilst visually improving the amenities of the area and the setting of the neighbouring Listed farmhouse.”

The Officer Report then goes on to state “Overall these benefits are considered to outweigh the disadvantages by virtue of its relatively unsustainable location, in this case”. 2 Council Ref: 13/1074M 3 Council Ref: 24/2206M

As such, there were clearly other factors the Council took into consideration in the planning balance, such as the benefits arising from the restoration of a historic barn and the improvement to the setting of the neighbouring listed farmhouse. Those benefits are case specific to that application and are not applicable to the appeal scheme before me.

In view of the above, I find that the approved application at [address] is not directly comparable to the appeal scheme before me, and this therefore limits the weight I can attribute to it in favour of the appeal proposal.

With regard to the approval at [address], the assessment of whether a site is located within a sustainable location is based upon the site-specific circumstances. However, I have been provided with limited information in respect of the location of that site in comparison to the appeal scheme before me, and I do not have all the details of that site’s proximity to the nearest services and facilities.

I cannot therefore draw any direct comparisons between the sustainability credentials of the approved development at [address] and the appeal scheme before me. Again, this limits the weight I can attribute to this approval by the Council in favour of

Turning back to the previously approved planning application for extensions / alterations to the existing garage at the appeal site. In addition to the extensions and alterations to the appeal building, the scheme before me also seeks consent for its use as a separate / independent dwelling. The previously approved application is therefore not comparable to the appeal scheme in respect of having to assess whether the appeal site is a suitable location for new housing. I therefore attribute this previously approved application very limited weight as a fallback position in my consideration of this main issue.

In view of all the above, whilst I acknowledge that paragraph 110 of the Framework identifies that sustainable transport solutions vary between urban and rural areas, I find that in this case future occupiers of the proposed development would be heavily reliant upon the use of the private car to access services and facilities. The appeal site would not therefore represent a sustainable location for residential development with respect to the accessibility of local services, facilities and sustainable modes of transport. The proposal therefore conflicts with [name] 1 and SD 2, where they together seek to ensure that development minimises trip generation and is accessible by public transport, walking and cycling. The proposal would also be contrary to the provisions of the Framework where it seeks to ensure that sustainable transport modes are prioritised.

To the west of the appeal site, on the opposite side of [site address] , is the [name] listed building known as [address]. I found the significance of this property in part derives from its historic value as a late 17th century building, as well as its aesthetic value arising from its distinctive white render finish and attractive timber framing.

[name] note the Council’s view that the proposed development would not affect the setting of this designated heritage asset, in determining this appeal I have a statutory duty, under Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving this listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

In this regard, I observed that this listed building is set back from the highway of [site address] , behind a combination of brick walls and hedging situated along its front boundary. The appeal building is situated on the opposite side of the road, and is also set back from this highway.

Through a combination of the separation distance between the appeal building and this listed building, as well as the intervention of the front boundary treatments, I consider that the proposed extensions and alterations to the appeal building, and its proposed use as a dwelling, would not compromise the setting of this listed building or any of its features of special architectural or historic interest.

Consequently, I conclude that the appeal proposal would preserve the setting of this listed building and its features of special architectural and historic interest.

I have found that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, as defined by the Framework. However, I have concluded that future occupiers of the proposed development would be heavily reliant upon the use of the private car and the appeal site would not therefore represent a sustainable location for residential development with respect to the accessibility of local services, facilities and sustainable modes of transport. The proposal would therefore conflict with [name] 1 and SD 2.

Paragraph 232 of the Framework makes it clear that due weight should be given to existing policies according to their degree of consistency with the Framework. In this respect the Framework seeks to ensure that sustainable transport modes are prioritised and expects development to promote sustainable travel modes, such as walking and cycling, that limit future car use. Therefore, the conflict between the proposal and [name] 1 and SD 2 should be given significant weight in this appeal as these policies are consistent with the Framework. As the proposal would be contrary to these policies there would be conflict with the development plan as a whole.

The Council has confirmed that it cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. In these circumstances footnote 8 of the Framework establishes that the policies which are most important for determining the appeal are deemed out-of-date. Consequently, permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole, having particular regard to key policies for directing development to sustainable locations, making effective use of land, securing well-designed places and providing affordable homes, individually or in combination.

Footnote 9 explains the policies referred to are those in paragraphs 66; 84; 91; 110; 115; 129, 135 and 139 of the Framework. As the appeal proposal is not for a major housing development, and does not propose a main town centre use, paragraphs 66 and 91 are not relevant to this appeal.

In respect of paragraph 84, which permits isolated homes in the countryside, I note that the appellant has not put forward a case in respect of this paragraph. Furthermore, based on the evidence before me and my observations on site, I find that the proposal would not adhere to any of the five exceptions within paragraph 84.

The appeal proposal seeks to convert and extend an existing building into residential use. Based on the submitted information I find no conflict with the design provisions of paragraphs 129 (e), 135 and 139 of the Framework.

However, for the reasons given earlier, I have found that the appeal site is not located within a sustainable location and would not offer a genuine choice of transport modes. The proposal would not therefore limit future car use as the site does not have good access to facilities, services and public transport connections by sustainable transport modes. The proposal would not therefore accord with paragraphs 110, 115 and 129 (c) of the Framework.

In addition, the Framework seeks to significantly boost the supply of homes and make efficient use of land. Criterion 15 of CELPS Policy SD 1 also states that development should, wherever possible, make efficient use of land and make the best use of previously developed land.

The Council has confirmed that it can currently demonstrate a 3.8-year supply of deliverable housing sites. As such, whilst the provision of one additional dwelling would make a very limited contribution to the Council’s housing land supply position, taking into account the Council’s shortfall in deliverable housing sites and that the proposal would represent the efficient use of previously developed land, I attach moderate weight to the benefits arising from the provision of one dwelling.

Economic benefits would arise from the proposal, including contributions to the local economy during the construction and conversion phases of the development. These however would be short term benefits. In accordance with paragraph 83 of the Framework further economic benefits would also arise from additional spending in the wider area by future occupants of the dwelling. Cumulatively, given the scale of development the economic support to the area arising from the appeal proposal would be relatively small. I therefore attach limited weight in respect of the economic benefits.

The appellant states that the appeal proposal would allow them to down-size from their existing property and remain in the area. However, I have no substantive evidence before me that there are no properties available in this area that would allow them to achieve this purported benefit. I attribute this matter very limited weight in favour of the

The submission states that the proposed dwelling would be a self-build property and I acknowledge paragraph 73(b) of the Framework supports small sites to come forward for self-build and custom-build housing.

The parties have not however provided details on the level of need for self-build plots within the authority, as per the self-build register, or details of how many self-build plots have been granted consent. Moreover, I have no legal agreement, undertaking or other mechanism suggested to secure this dwelling as a self-build plot under the legislative requirements of the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015.

Consequently, in the absence of any detailed information in respect of self-build plots within the borough and a mechanism to secure this provision, I give the self-build consideration limited weight in favour of the appeal proposal.

In view of all the above, I find that the adverse impacts arising from the appeal site’s unsustainable location would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework taken as a whole. As a result, the presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply.

I conclude that the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is dismissed.