Appeal 6003628

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of proposed works set out on the planning application provides a comprehensive summary of the proposal. In the interests of clarity and conciseness, in the header above I have based the description of development on that provided in the appeal form.

The main issues in this appeal are: • 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; • the effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; and • whether other considerations clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm so as to amount to very special circumstances.

The appeal site comprises a semi-detached dwelling with a large front and side garden, accessed via a private track. The site is in the Green Belt.

Policy SP4 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2021 (LP) provides a general presumption against inappropriate development in the Green Belt and requires proposals for development in the Green Belt be assessed in accordance with the Framework.

Paragraph 142 of the Framework attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Paragraph 154 of the Framework indicates that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless certain exceptions apply.

Paragraph 154(c), the Framework supports 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. Section 11.32 of the [name] provides guidance on the scale of extensions in the Green Belt. It states that, as a guiding principle, to be considered as proportionate the original building should not be added to by more than 60% of footprint, floorspace and volume. In addition, the impact of the extension in terms of massing and design will also be considered. Paragraph 11.32.2 of the [name] indicates the original building is the house as it was first built or as it stood on the 01 July 1948, where built before that date.

The proposal would involve the conversion and extension of an existing garage to an annexe to provide living accommodation. At paragraph 11.32.6, the [name] indicates that in certain cases, depending on proximity, outbuildings may be included within those calculations as a matter of fact and degree, and original outbuildings may be considered if within 5 metres of the existing dwelling.

The existing garage is close to the main dwelling and is within five metres of it. Having regard to the [name] and the close physical and visual relationship between the garage and dwelling, it is appropriate to take account the built form of the dwelling and garage in assessing whether the proposal would be a disproportionate addition.

The proposed extension would infill an area currently occupied by a pergola at the end of the garage. The pergola is an outdoor, open-sided structure and does not comprise internal floorspace or volume. Through enclosure of this space, the proposed development would materially increase built form on the site.

On its own, the proposal would represent a small increase in floorspace and volume. However, as discussed above, I must take account the cumulative effect of additions to the original building. The dwelling has previously been altered through addition of two storey extensions, a single storey side extension1, and replacement garage2.

Considered cumulatively with previous extensions, the proposal would increase the original building’s footprint by 208% and floorspace by 160%. Together with previous building operations on the site, the massing and design of the proposed development would result in an increase in footprint, floorspace, and built volume on the site that would significantly exceed the [name] 60% standard.

The proposal would involve the removal of the existing mobile home, which is sited within the front garden and provides ancillary living accommodation. The mobile home is not a building, and its volume has not been included in the footprint and floorspace calculations above. Therefore, the proposed increase in built volume would not be offset by the removal of the mobile home. 1 LPA refs: CB/16/03308/FULL and CB/17/05314/FULL 2 LPA ref: CB/21/02136/FULL

For these reasons, considered cumulatively with previous development, the proposed extension and alterations would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Therefore, the proposal would not comply with the exception at paragraph 154(c) of the Framework and therefore would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Openness has both spatial and visual elements. The spatial effects of the proposal would be a reduction in openness commensurate in scale to the proposed increase in built form on the site.

The proposed extension would be set back in the site and partly screened from the access track by existing boundary treatments. The proposed extension would be of modest scale, and any views would be experienced within the context of existing residential development. Therefore, the visual impact would be small.

The appellant asserts that removal of the mobile home would consolidate the area of living space within the site, thereby enhancing openness. However, the mobile home is a movable structure whereas the proposed development would be of permanent construction and thus has a materially different impact on openness.

Furthermore, I have been provided no mechanism to prevent a mobile home or similar structure from being sited in the same location in future. Therefore, I cannot be certain that any increase in openness would persist over the lifetime of the development.

Reflecting the scale of the proposal, the development would have a small but harmful effect on the Green Belt’s essential characteristics, namely its openness and permanence.

As set out above, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would harm openness. Paragraph 153 of the Framework requires substantial weight be given to any harm to the Green Belt.

Paragraph 152 of the Framework states inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 153 indicates that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Whilst the proposal includes removal of the mobile home that has been occupied on the site for over 10 years, as discussed above, I cannot be certain this would permanently enhance Green Belt openness, and thus carries only limited weight.

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 sets out a right for respect for private and family life and Article 3(1) of the [name] on the Rights of the Child provides that ‘in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration’. Relatives of the appellant, including a child, reside at [address]. The appellant asserts the proposed development would provide suitable, permanent, and energy efficient accommodation for the mobile home’s occupants.

However, the proposal does not establish that the development would be the only option to meet the occupant’s accommodation needs, it is unclear why the mobile home is not suitable for occupation, and it is not demonstrated that the proposal would be essential to the occupant’s family life or necessary to provide for the best interests of the child. In the absence of full details of the occupant’s accommodation needs, I have no reason to consider that dismissal of the appeal would result in an interference with the occupant’s rights or conflict with my responsibilities to reduce inequalities and minimise disadvantage under the Public Sector Equality Duty. Consequently, the proposed increase in accommodation would represent only a very limited public benefit.

The appellant has drawn my attention to a grant of planning permission by the Council at a neighbouring property for conversion of a double garage to a two-storey annexe3. However, the submitted information does not suggest the approved scheme was inappropriate development. Therefore, I have no reason to consider the Council’s decision was inconsistent in its decision-making.

For these reasons, such other considerations would not clearly outweigh the harm to Green Belt openness. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development would not exist.

The proposal would therefore conflict with LP Policy SP4 which requires proposals for development in the Green Belt be assessed in accordance with the Framework.

The proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations which outweigh this finding. Therefore, for the reasons given the appeal should be dismissed.