Appeal 6003108

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for modified and refaced single story flat roofed timber facing building with proposed additional landscaping and continued use as a restaurant and use of existing hotel parking at [site address] , [site address] , Elstree [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/1228/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The description of development differs between the application form and decision notice. In the absence of any confirmation that the applicant agreed to change the description I have taken the description from the application form. However, in the formal decision above, I have removed reference to retrospective as this is not an act of development.

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; and • if it is inappropriate, 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 development.

The appeal site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Certain forms of development are, however, not inappropriate. One such exception is limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL) (including a material change of use to residential or mixed use including residential), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, as set out in Paragraph 154 g) of the Framework. The definition of PDL in the Framework includes land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land and any associated fixed surface infrastructure.

Policy CS13 of the [name] (2013) (HCS) reflects the aims of the Framework in relation to the Green Belt. It sets out that development proposals, including those involving previously developed land and buildings, will be assessed in accordance with the Framework. Policy SADM26 of the Hertsmere Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Plan (2016) (SADMPP) states that proposals for development in the Green Belt will be assessed in accordance with Policy CS13 of the HCS and lists a number of principles with which development should comply.

The site was subject to a previous appeal for a similar proposal1. That appeal was dismissed as the Inspector considered the proposal to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and found that very special circumstances did not exist. Since that appeal was determined, a revised version of the Framework has been released. Under the previous Framework, the Green Belt exception against which the proposal was assessed concerned limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development. The change to the wording within the Framework is, therefore, a significant material consideration in this appeal. Furthermore, I note that since the previous appeal, where the Inspector found limited visual harm and moderate spatial harm to the Green Belt openness, the footprint of the development has been reduced.

The appeal site comprises a single storey building located near to [address] hotel within established landscaped grounds. The existing structure has replaced a block of garages with concrete hardstanding. Both parties are in agreement that the appeal site does constitute PDL. The issue therefore turns on whether the proposal causes substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

The Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) provides advice on the factors that can be taken into account when considering the potential impact of development on the openness of 1 Ref: APP/N1920/W/22/3306810 the Green Belt, with openness being capable of having both spatial and visual aspects.

From the information before me, the appeal proposal has a larger footprint than the garages. The building is surrounded by mature vegetation and trees on three sides, is low in height, with a flat roof and is clad in timber, which overtime, will weather and blend even further into the surrounding woodland setting. There is also the opportunity for further planting which could be secured by a condition. Given its contained location within the wider hotel grounds and its design, it is not visually prominent in wider views outside of the hotel site or the carpark. Considering the site context and the design, any adverse effects on the visual openness of the Green Belt are limited and localised.

Spatially, given that the development has introduced a building of a larger scale than the previous garages, it has a greater impact on the spatial aspect of openness compared to the previous garages and area of hardstanding. Moreover, as the site will operate as a restaurant there is likely to be a greater increase in associated comings and goings than would have been the case with the use of six garages. I thus find that the development results in moderate spatial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

Accordingly, whilst I find there would be some limited visual and moderate spatial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, that harm would not be substantial. Therefore, the proposal would accord with the exception at paragraph 154g of the Framework and is not deemed to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Consequently, there is no need for me to consider whether any very special circumstances exist. By reason of being in accordance with the Framework, the development would also comply with Policies CS13 of the HCS and Policy SADM26 of the SADMPP.

Concern has been raised from an interested party regarding the standard of construction and parking congestion. Construction standards would be a matter be covered by regimes outside of the planning system. Regarding parking, the premises would utilise the existing hotel parking. The Highways Authority have not raised an objection to the proposal and the previous Inspector concluded that any shortfall in parking would be very modest and would be unlikely to give rise to demonstrable harm to highway safety. I have no substantive evidence to the contrary which would lead me to a different view.

The hotel near to the appeal building is known as [address] and is locally listed. It is a substantial mock-Tudor building with many original features. Its significance is derived from its architectural and historical interest. The grounds form part of the setting of the building. Considering the limited scale of the development, the proposal does not have an adverse effect on its setting and does not diminish the ability to appreciate the significance of the heritage asset. The Council’s Heritage Officer also raised no concerns in this regard.

Reference has also been made to The Leys, a listed arts and crafts country house within landscaped grounds, north of the appeal site designed by the architect [name]. Its significance is derived from its architectural and historical interest. Given the location of the development in relation to the heritage asset, the setting of this designated asset would be preserved and its significance would not be harmed. I note the Council have not raised an objection in this regard.

I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council having regard to the tests in the Framework and the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance (“the PPG”), as well as the appellant’s comments. Where necessary I have made changes to the wording in the interests of precision and clarity.

As the development has commenced, the standard time condition is not necessary. A condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary for the avoidance of doubt.

A condition requiring details of landscaping, including proposed planting is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area.

To ensure no adverse impacts to the living conditions of nearby occupiers and hotel guests, it is necessary to impose a condition restricting the opening hours.

The Council suggested a condition requiring the appellant to provide a valid building control certificate prior to the use of the building permitted. This would be covered by regimes outside of the planning system and is therefore not necessary.

For the reasons above, the appeal is allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: 0001_P_001, 0001_P_100, 0001_P_102, 0001_P_200 and 0001_P_201.

The development shall not be brought into use until details of landscaping have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall include details of existing and proposed tree planting.

All planting comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the occupation of the building, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the development being brought into use die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

The use hereby permitted shall only take place between the following hours: 12.00 – 23.30: Friday and Saturday and 12.00 - 23.00: Sunday to Thursday. *End of Conditions*