Appeal 6002772

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal would replace the existing garage building with a smaller one. It is acknowledged that the existing garage was built without planning permission and an enforcement notice has been upheld against it at appeal1. Nonetheless, I am required to consider the scheme before me on its own merits.

The main issues are: • the effect of the proposal on the significance of the Grade II Listed Building, [site address] (reference 1319773); and • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies.

As the proposal would be in the setting of a listed building, special regard to section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) must be had.

[site address] (the House) is a large 3 storey detached manor-style property dating back to the late 18th century. It is located within expansive grounds including gardens and a lake. Its frontage is symmetrical with a Tuscan columned central portico creating a grandiose elevation facing out towards open vistas. The back of the House is more functional in finish and outlook, with some of the buildings 1 APP/P0119/C/24/3341636 related to the now separated [name] and associated mix of farm buildings located very closely to it.

Therefore, the space around the House is very much of 2 characters that of the formal frontage and garden facing areas, and that of the plainer more function spaces and elevations which are towards the farm and traditionally would have housed the more practical uses related to such a large property. The significance of the LB is therefore related to its age and also its architectural interest.

The proposal would be to the north of the House, located in the more functional area and away from the formal elevations. The northern side of the House includes a range of modest single storey elements constructed from course stonework with red tiled roofs and located around a small courtyard.

The proposal although smaller than the existing garage would still be large in comparison to the diminutive scale of the single storey range of the House’s northern elevation. This in conjunction with its proximity and positioning directly in front of the courtyard access would overwhelm and dominate this historic feature of the House. It would have an unbalancing effect by being out of scale with the lower and narrower single storey range so would harm the setting of the House and thereby its significance.

Nevertheless, this would be of less than substantial harm of the lower order, due to the materials used being controllable by condition, and that the broad location of the proposal would be where functional uses for the House would traditional be located.

Where a proposal would lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, Paragraph 215 of the Framework advises that this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including, where appropriate, securing its optimal viable use.

No specific public benefits have been identified, and the provision of off-road covered parking would constitute a private benefit. Further the optimal use of the House is a residential dwelling is not at risk were the proposal not permitted.

With no public benefits to outweigh the less than substantial harm identified. The proposal would fail to preserve the significance of the House as a heritage asset, so fail to satisfy the requirements of the Act and the Framework. It would also conflict with South Gloucestershire Local Plan: [name] (CS) Policies CS1 and CS9, and South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (PSPP) Policies PSP1, PSP17, and PSP38 which, amongst other things, seek to preserve, respect and enhance the historic environment by ensuring development responds to local distinctiveness and the design of the host building.

[site address] in conjunction with [name] and the associated barns and outbuildings creates a pocket of development surrounded by fields and woodland within the Bristol / Bath Green Belt and outside any development plan designated settlement.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that development is inappropriate in the Green Belt unless it complies with one of the 8 specified exception criteria. The Council considers the proposal to be disproportionate to the host dwelling. This along with the proposed location, use and proximity to the host dwelling means that the proposal could be considered an extension or alteration to the building so Paragraph 154 c) applies.

Paragraph 154 c) requires that the extension or alteration of a building does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. In this context the Council has relied on the PSPP Policy PSP7 which states that in general a volume increase of up to 30% would likely be proportionate, and those exceeding 50% would likely be considered disproportionate.

However, neither party has presented any volume calculations, and it is noted that the Framework is not so prescriptive as to require mathematical calculations to assess the proportionality of that proposed.

The host dwelling is a large historic building with numerous extensions and alterations undertaken over its lifetime. Nevertheless, the Framework glossary describes an ‘original building’ as that which existed on 1 July 1948 or if constructed after that date as it was originally built. With the host dwelling being first listed in 1953 it is a reasonable assumption most extensions or alterations would have required some form of consent or permission.

The relevant planning history provided in the officer report does not show any approved extensions to the host dwelling, with the only approved alterations limited to those of boundary treatments and access (PK08/1284/F). Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, the size and proportionality of the host dwelling in its original form is likely to be similar to that observed on site.

So, taking account of the large size of the host dwelling, it is found the proposed building would unlikely be of a mass which could constitute the equivalent or greater of 50% of the volume of the host dwelling. Similarly when considering the proportionality of that proposed to the host dwelling both visually and physically, it is not found to constitute an unacceptably sized extension or alteration to that building (notwithstanding the harm identified in terms of its specific location and design in relation to the building as a heritage asset).

Consequently, in this instance, the proposal would not constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt. It would fall under Framework Paragraph 154 c) and accordingly comply with PSPP Policy PSP7, and [name] CS5 and CS34 which seek to protect the Green Belt in line with the Framework, amongst other things.

As the proposal would not be inappropriate development, it is not necessary to further consider the effect of the proposal on openness or the purposes of including land in the Green Belt, nor is it necessary to consider very special circumstances.

The appellant has referred to previous demolished historic buildings in the location of the proposal but without any substantive evidence of where and what they were, and how the proposal would relate to them. This does not, therefore, alter the findings of this decision.

The Council has found no harm in terms of living conditions, amenity space, highways, and trees. However, a lack of harm, by definition, cannot weigh for or against a proposal.

[name] have found the proposal to not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt this would constitute a lack of harm and therefore incapable of weighing against the harm identified in relation to the setting of the House, a designated

Consequently, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan as a whole and the Framework, and there are no material considerations, which would indicate a decision otherwise. The appeal should, therefore, be dismissed.