Appeal 6003786

The appeal is dismissed.

A large, detached dwelling was granted planning permission (Ref: 2022/1366/FUL) on 8 March 2024. This was subject to a condition that an outbuilding would be removed from the site within 6 months of the date of the permission. This appeal proposal seeks to vary this condition to partially retain the structure.

Although not mentioned in the application submitted to the Council, a variation of condition 2 is also sought which would substitute the approved plans on Ref: 2022/1366/FUL with new plans of the partially retained structure that is sought. This would not prejudice the main parties, and I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is whether the disputed conditions are reasonable or necessary in the interests of preserving the openness of the Green Belt.

The appeal site is situated in the Green Belt. Policy GN1 of the West Lancashire Local Plan 2012-2027 (Local Plan) sets out that development proposals within the Green Belt will be assessed against national policy.

The National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) states at Paragraph 142 that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The Framework establishes that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of the exceptions set out at Paragraph’s 154 / 155 of the Framework apply, one of which is the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. Neither the Framework nor the Local Plan define what is materially larger, although the Council’s Development in the Green Belt Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) sets out that the total volume of the replacement dwelling should not be more than 20% greater than the dwelling it replaced.

The approved dwelling significantly exceeded the 20% volume increase of the original dwelling. It was granted by the Council on the basis that the outbuilding was to be demolished. The Appellant seeks the partial retention of the front section of the outbuilding which would provide a garage. Although this would be ancillary to the main dwelling and subordinate to it in terms of its size, its retention would result in a larger built form, both in terms of volume and in the spread of development on the appeal site.

Whilst the rearward projecting section of the outbuilding would be removed, the retention of the garage part would not result in reduced sprawl, having regard to the requirements of disputed condition 4. Rather, the volumetric increase by the retained garage part of the outbuilding, which is in close proximity to the main dwelling, would result in a materially larger building, with a reduction in both the visual and spatial openness of the Green Belt.

I therefore conclude that the disputed conditions are reasonable and necessary in the interests of preserving the openness of the Green Belt. As such, the proposal would conflict with Local Plan Policy GN1, Paragraph 153 of the Framework, and the SPD, which state, amongst other matters, that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness.

Reference has been made to amendments that could be made to a [name], but such an amended legal agreement has not been provided and is not therefore before me. I can confirm that I have dealt with the appeal proposal on its own merits.

The removal of Permitted Development rights has placed control on further development, but this does not negate the harm that would arise from the additional built form by virtue of the retained garage that is sought.

Reference has been made to the financial impact of complying with condition 4 and that the variation sought would allow services to remain in the current location. Whilst this matter attracts some limited weight in favour of the proposal, it would not outweigh the substantial weight that should be given to any harm to the Green Belt.

The proposal would not be harmful in terms of its design or effect on landscape character. There would also be no harmful effects arising on neighbouring occupiers living conditions. These are all however neutral matters and not ones which weigh in favour of the proposal.

I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.