Appeal 6003710

The appeal is dismissed.

The proposal is for permission in principle. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that this is an alternative way of obtaining planning permission for housing-led development. The permission in principle route has two stages: the first ‘permission in principle’ stage establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle, and the second ‘technical details consent’ stage is when the detailed development proposals are assessed. This appeal relates to the first of these two stages.

The scope of the considerations for permission in principle is limited to location, land use and the amount of development permitted. In this instance, because the site is in the Green Belt, these matters must be assessed in relation to national and local Green Belt policies. All other matters are considered as part of a subsequent technical details consent application if permission in principle is granted.

An applicant can apply for a range of dwellings by expressing a minimum and maximum net number of dwellings as part of the application. In this instance, permission in principle has been sought for up to 9 dwellings. Drawings were submitted with the application showing the flats replacing both the existing dwelling and a separate building containing two flats. I have treated these plans as indicative only.

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

The development plan and accompanying policies map identify the appeal site as lying within the Metropolitan Green Belt. There is no evidence before me to suggest that the land falls within an area of grey belt as defined in Annex 2 of the Framework or that it is subject to a proposal to remove it from the Green Belt through plan-making. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis that the site lies within the established Green Belt and that paragraph 155 of the Framework does not apply.

The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts, whose essential characteristics are their openness and their permanence. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, and the Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. A number of exceptions are set out in paragraph 154, one of which is the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in in continuing use, which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt (criterion g).

The appeal site contains a detached house and a pair of flats which share an access and a gravelled parking and turning area. The house has a garden which, since the site is not in a built-up area, is previously developed land by reference to Annex 2 of the Framework. The appeal site is therefore previously developed land and the proposal is to completely redevelop it.

The PPG advises on the factors to be taken into account when considering the potential impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt1. It guides that, amongst other things, openness is capable of having both spatial and visual aspects, and that the degree of activity likely to be generated is a relevant consideration.

Indicative plans show the house and two flats being demolished and a new building containing up to nine flats erected, which the appellant has indicated could be three storeys high. The position, scale and design of the flats would not be determined until the technical details consent stage, however. I therefore afford limited weight to the consolidation of built form centrally within the site, and the visual benefit which the appellant argues would result from the demolition of the pair of flats next to [site address] .

There is no indication of the sizes of the flats, which has a bearing on the massing of the proposal, or how the volume of the proposed flats would compare with that of the existing buildings. The existing detached house is of reasonable size but the two existing flats are relatively small, and therefore the proposal for up to nine flats, even if all one bedroomed, would represent a substantial increase in the volume of 1 Paragraph: 013 [name]: 64-[phone] built form. This would be the case whether the flats were designed as a single building or as more than one building. There would be a significant loss of spatial openness as a consequence of the proposal.

The site is screened by trees and hedgerows from [site address] to the front and from the M25 to the rear. It is also screened by vegetation from the scaffolding business, stables and paddock which are within the appellant’s ownership. Notwithstanding the degree of existing screening, however, a building or buildings accommodating up to nine flats would result in much greater massing, which would be visible in glimpsed views from [site address] and from other directions as well. This visual impact would be exacerbated were the eventual scheme to be three storeys high. As a consequence, there would be a loss of visual openness, which would be moderate owing to the natural screening around the site.

Although [site address] is located nearby, I have not been advised that facilities to meet day-to-day needs are within walking distance of the site or that alternative modes of transport exist to allow access to higher order facilities. Future occupiers of the flats would therefore be largely reliant on the private vehicle. The three existing dwellings would be likely to generate many fewer vehicle movements than up to nine flats. [name] observed a number of vehicles on the site, including commercial vehicles, a digger and a camper van, many of them appeared to be stored on site rather than being used by residents. They were parked on informal gravelled areas and in some cases on grass, whereas a scheme of up to nine flats would necessitate large hard surfaced areas for parking and turning.

Although the proposal excludes part of the existing garden of the dwelling, it is reasonable to assume that there would be a shared outdoor space for future residents, with a consequent increase in domestic paraphernalia. There would also need to be space for increased bin and bicycle storage. Together with the parking requirements of the proposal, there would be a substantial increase in levels of activity and a resultant loss of openness.

Having regard to all these considerations, the proposal would cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. It therefore fails to satisfy Paragraph 154(g) of the Framework, and would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the policies in the Framework.

Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. I have identified that the proposal would result in a loss of spatial openness and, notwithstanding the natural screening around the site, a loss of visual openness. The proposal would also result in increased levels of activity, with a resultant harmful effect on openness.

There are a number of unimplemented planning consents on the site. In respect of the dwelling, there are a lawful development certificate to extend it on two sides2 and a prior approval to add one storey3. Both are capable of being implemented without the need to discharge planning conditions. Additionally, planning permission was granted but is no longer extant to replace the two flats with a larger pair of flats4. There is no reason to suppose that planning permission would not be 2 LPA reference 22/01618/CLP 3 PINS reference APP/L3625/D/23/3323063 4 LPA reference 20/02807/F granted again if applied for. Taken together, these consents constitute a fallback position to which I must have regard in terms of their effect on openness.

If implemented, the extensions to the house would result in a building with a significantly greater volume and height, whilst the volume of the flats would be moderately increased. Careful design and an emphasis on smaller flats could therefore result in a building or buildings for up to nine flats not being materially larger than the existing buildings as extended/replaced. However, activity levels associated with car parking and domestic paraphernalia for an enlarged house and flats from would not differ materially from the current situation, whereas up to nine flats would significantly increase levels of activity at the site, with resultant harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

My attention has been drawn to a recently allowed appeal for permission in principle for up to five dwellings in place of existing commercial uses, stables and a two-bedroom apartment at [name] Farm5, in the Green Belt. The proposal resulted in approximately a 50% reduction in the volume and footprint of buildings, and the Inspector found that five dwellings would not have led to a significant uplift in activity or paraphernalia as the site already had a reasonable level of activity associated with it. The circumstances therefore differed significantly from the current situation, and I place limited weight on the outcome of the appeal.

I have had regard to the planning permission granted at Frith Park in [site address] for a mixed use development comprising 37 dwellings and employment uses6. In that case, the Council assessed the proposal as being inappropriate development, but very special circumstances were found to exist which outweighed the harm to the Green Belt and justified the development. The benefits included a reduction in the overall footprint and volume of buildings, a reduction in hardstanding, and a range of heritage and landscape benefits. The circumstances and planning balance were therefore much different from the current case, and I afford it limited weight.

When the fallback position is accounted for, I find that the proposal would not materially impact on the spatial and visual aspects of openness, but that levels of activity would increase substantially. The proposal would therefore result in a loss of openness of the Green Belt as a whole, conflicting with the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy, set out in paragraph 142 of the Framework, of keeping land permanently open.

The proposal would make efficient use of previously developed land to provide additional dwellings, providing a boost to the supply of homes. It would meet a demand for smaller homes. The proposal would bring economic benefits during the construction phase and from future occupiers utilising local businesses.

I have not been advised that there is a housing land supply shortfall or that the [name] has been failed. The lack of harm to the landscape and scenic beauty of the Surrey Hills Area of [name] is neutral in the

The Framework advises that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Policy NHE5 of the Reigate & Banstead Local Plan Development Management Plan Adopted September 2019 (DMP) requires replacement buildings in the Green Belt to, amongst other things, respect the character of the area and the openness of the Green Belt, not to be materially larger, and to be sited close to the position of the original building. The proposal for up to nine flats could be sited in the same position as the existing house. Taking account of the fallback position of the various consents on the site, up to nine flats need not be materially larger than the existing buildings. However, the resulting significantly increased levels of activity would not respect the character of the area or the openness of the Green Belt, contrary to Policy NHE5.

Policy DES1 of the DMP, which is referred to in the reason for refusal, is not a Green Belt policy but governs the design of new development. One of its stipulations is that proposals must make adequate provision for access, servicing, circulation and turning space, and parking, taking into account the impact on local character including the visual impact of parked cars. Given the amount of cars the proposal would generate, the visual impact of the hard surfaced area required for parking and turning would harm local character, in conflict with Policy DES1.

I have found that the proposal would be inappropriate development and would result in a loss of openness, even accounting for the fallback position. I attach substantial weight to this harm.

Set against this harm, the proposal would provide social and economic benefits. These benefits weigh moderately in favour of the proposal.

Weighing these matters together, I find that the other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the harm identified. Looking at the case as a whole, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

The proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan as a whole, and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.