Appeal 6003409

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal, which seeks retrospective planning permission. The main issues in regard to which are a) whether the garage is inappropriate development in the Green Belt; b) its effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and c) if it is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify it.

In regard to Green Belt development, the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) sets out, amongst other things, that such is inappropriate unless it falls within a given set of exceptions. Policy GN1 of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027, 2013 (LP) reflects the stance of the Framework in this regard. The Council has assessed the garage against paragraph 154(c) of the Framework, which relates to 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.

Guidance contained in the Supplementary Planning Document, Development in the Green Belt, 2015 (SPD) states that detached outbuildings, provided they are permanent and substantial in their construction, will be treated as extensions to the dwelling, despite their physical separation. It goes on to explain that an outbuilding, together with any previous additions, should not result in more than a 40% increase in the volume of the original building.

The appeal relates to a detached, gable pitched roof garage positioned to the side of and close to the original dwelling (a bungalow) and amounts to a normal domestic adjunct for that purpose. The bungalow also appears to have been extended to the rear. The site has open rural views to the south with a small cluster of buildings to the west and a large agricultural building to the north of the site.

Both main parties accept that the cumulative development exceeds the aforementioned 40% threshold, with the appellant suggesting that the garage and previous additions to the bungalow amount to a 70% increase in volume over the original dwelling. Such a substantial uplift represents a clear intensification of built form. The garage alone constitutes a sizeable addition, projecting across a wide area of the side garden and appreciably increasing the overall scale and mass of development within the site.

Taking these matters together and in the context of what has gone before, the development amounts to disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. As such, it constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This conflicts with both the identification of such by the Framework and the aims of Policy GN1 of the LP as they align therewith and are set out above.

Openness is a fundamental attribute of the Green Belt and comprises both spatial and visual elements. Spatial openness is generally taken to refer to the absence of built form. The appeal scheme has introduced a detached building across a substantial portion of the side garden, that has resulted in built development where none had been previously. This has, unavoidably, reduced the spatial aspect of the Green Belt’s openness.

Given the site’s semi-rural and largely exposed location fronting [site address] , the garage has a noticeable visual effect. Standing as a detached building of some substance alongside the bungalow. This has also, inevitably for these reasons, reduced the visual aspect of the Green Belt’s openness. The harm this causes is as well as that arising out of the development’s inappropriateness.

The appellant suggests that the garage, together with the existing bungalow, would support additional accommodation provision for the adjacent bed and breakfast business. However, the development was submitted under a householder application and was determined on that basis. A householder application cannot authorise, or imply authorisation for, a commercial or business use, and no such use forms part of the development sought. Furthermore, no evidence has been provided to demonstrate how any future commercial operation would function from the building and whether the existing enterprise might suffer in its absence. In any event, and given my findings on the scale and nature of the development, this consideration attracts very limited weight.

I understand that the appellant did not intend to undertake development that required planning permission and that they have expressed a willingness to amend the design of the garage and to remove the existing lean‐to extension from the bungalow in order to reduce the overall level of built development on the site. Whatever discussions may have taken place between the main parties during the course of the application to this effect, the appeal process is not intended to provide a mechanism for revising or evolving a scheme. This decision must therefore be based on the proposal as submitted to, and determined by, the Council, and on which interested parties had the opportunity to comment.

The appellant has referred to development said to have taken place elsewhere in the wider area and in the field opposite the site. However, no details have been provided, and I did not observe such development during my site visit. In the absence of substantive information, I am unable to determine whether any such works are comparable to the appeal scheme. My attention has also been drawn to extensions at the [name]. While the Framework supports the provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport in the Green Belt, I have not been provided with any plans, permissions, or contextual information. I am therefore unable to make any meaningful assessment of the nature of that development or its relevance to the proposal before me.

The appeal scheme constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It also results in a reduction in openness, both spatially and visually. In accordance with the Framework, I give substantial weight to these harms. In totality, the weight I would ascribe to the other considerations would be insufficient to clearly outweigh it. Accordingly, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

The proposal therefore conflicts with the aims of the development plan as I have set them out above and there are no other material considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, that indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.