Appeal 6003555

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.

The main issues are: i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies; ii) the effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; and iii) if the proposal would be inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to very special circumstances necessary to justify it.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within a given list of exceptions. One such exception is 154(c) the extension or alteration of a building provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Policy CS.10 of the Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy (CS) (2016) is generally consistent with the Framework requiring that any extensions should be small scale and that inappropriate development in the Green Belt should be resisted, except in cases where very special circumstances are justified in accordance with the provisions of national policy.

Case law has established that for the purposes of paragraph 154 of the Framework, an extension does not have to be physically attached to the host building. Although the proposed garage would be detached, given its function and positioning close to the dwelling, it would be a normal domestic adjunct and so would amount to an extension to the dwelling.

The meaning of ‘disproportionate additions’ is not defined in the Framework or the CS. Therefore, whether additions are disproportionate is a matter of planning judgement. As stated within the Framework, the exception in paragraph 154(c) relates to the original building which is defined in the Glossary as a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was originally built. Therefore, in assessing whether the current proposal represents a disproportionate addition, I must consider it cumulatively with previous extensions to the original building.

The site’s planning history includes a planning permission granted in 2014 for “extension to the garage with first floor extension over”. The Council has provided the approved drawings, and I observed on my site visit that the planning permission has been implemented. The approved drawings are also annotated to indicate ‘extension completed’ to a single storey rear projection although no planning history has been provided in that regard.

On a visual assessment of the 2014 approved drawings, it seems previous extensions have resulted in a substantial increase in floorspace and volume when compared with the original building. When considered cumulatively with the proposed three bay wide garage, the combined extensions would materially increase the size of the dwelling beyond what could reasonably be regarded as proportionate to the original building. There is no detailed assessment, for example in terms of precise footprint, floorspace and volume calculations of the original building or the proposed development along with those of any previous extensions to indicate otherwise.

The proposal would therefore amount to a disproportionate addition to the original building and as such would not meet the exception in paragraph 154(c) of the NPPF. It would consequently be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would conflict with the Framework and the relevant development plan policy.

Paragraph 142 of the Framework sets out the essential characteristics of Green Belts, which are their openness and permanence. It has been held in the [address] that openness is epitomised by the lack of buildings or development, with both visual and spatial aspects.

The proposed garage would be partly screened from public viewpoints by the frontage hedging, limiting the visual effect on openness. However, there would undoubtedly be a spatial effect resulting from the large triple garage footprint together with its mass and its siting forward of the host dwelling which would encroach into a part of the curtilage where there is not an existing building. Taken together, the visual and spatial effects of the garage would have a modest effect on the openness of the Green Belt.

I conclude, the proposals would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt, thereby conflicting with the aims of including land within the Green Belt when assessed against the Framework.

The appellant has referred to development at nearby properties. However, in the absence of precise details of those permissions, it is unclear whether the circumstances were similar or identical to the appeal proposal. In and case, development elsewhere does not preclude me form assessing the proposed development against the requirements of national and local planning policy and I have therefore assessed the appeal on its own merits. The appellant’s desire to provide ancillary accommodation with improved security of storage and parking are noted. However, any benefits derived in this regard would relate to a single household and carry limited weight.

I have found that the development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt to which I attach substantial weight. The Framework states that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should only be approved in very special circumstances.

As part of the assessment, I have also found that the development would result in a modest effect on the openness of the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. This is a high hurdle for a development proposal to overcome.

The other considerations put forward in favour of the proposal carry no more than limited weight.

In conclusion and on balance, the substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm, in addition to the other harm identified is not clearly outweighed by other considerations and therefore the very special circumstances needed to justify the proposed development do not exist.

For the reasons given, I therefore recommend that the appeal be dismissed.

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