Appeal 6003816

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 scheme. The main issues in regard to which are a) whether it would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; its effect on b) the openness of the Green Belt and c) the character and appearance of the area; and d) whether any 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 National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) explains that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate subject to a closed list of exceptions. One is set out by Paragraph 154 c), referring 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. Paragraph 154 d) explains that replacement buildings might not be inappropriate, provided the new one is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces.

Policies DP10 and DP13 of the Tandridge District Local Plan Part 2: [name] 2014-2029 (2014) (LPP2) set out similar provisions, referring to the national policy situation. Policy DP14 of LPP2 permits new garages and other ancillary domestic buildings in the curtilage of dwellings in the Green Belt where four specified criteria are met, with such compliance stated to effectively amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the new building as a form of inappropriate development.

As a closely related domestic adjunct, one can consider an incidental outbuilding an extension for the purposes of Green Belt policy. Whilst there is no definition of what might constitute disproportionate, an essential principle of the growth of buildings in the Green Belt is that any comparison of what is proposed should relate to the original, not existing, building. This is to protect the Green Belt from incremental growth that might otherwise undermine its purpose to keep land permanently open. In regard to replacement buildings, the test relates to materiality of the replacement’s increase in size over the one it replaces.

I have no sufficiently clear indication of what the original building was for the purposes of paragraph 154 c). Comparing it with the adjoined neighbour however, it would appear to amount to the modest two storey hipped roof main body and a small flat roofed out house style extension to the rear. The current timber double garage appears to be much later, as does the metal shipping container. These would both be removed.

As the structures slated for removal are clearly not original, they could not be considered a ‘trade off’ for the purposes of the added built form under paragraph 154 c). In this regard, the proposed outbuilding would occupy a substantial land take. One noticeably larger than the house itself. Despite it being single storey and subservient in height terms when compared to the house, it would have a pitched roof and thus represent a significant amount of additional volume over the original situation. The Council has provided uplift figures over even the existing situation which would, by virtue of what appears to be an uncontested conclusion, result more than a 60% increase in volume. This does not appear to take account of an extant planning permission (Council reference 2025/260) for a single storey side extension that would ‘link’ to the proposed garage.

One could therefore draw no conclusion other than that this would amount to disproportionate additions over and above the original building. In terms of paragraph 154 d), and taking those figures into account, it would be patently clear that the replacement building would be materially larger than that which it would replace. The scheme would thus fail to satisfy this exception. In regard to the specified criteria of Policy DP14 of LPP2, and with the above in mind, the proposed garage would be a dominant feature and excessive in size having regard to the size of the dwelling it would serve.

As such, the appeal scheme would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. As per the Framework, this would be harmful thereto by definition. There would be conflict with the Green Belt protection aims of Policies DP10, DP13 and DP14, as previously outlined.

Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt and can be perceived spatially and visually. The proposed large outbuilding would be taller than the existing garage and container it would replace, and through the workshop and storage area at its rear, would be partly positioned over what is an undeveloped lawn. As a consequence, there would be a reduction in the current spatial openness of the site. In visual terms, the development’s massing would be seen from fields to its rear and from the public highway, notwithstanding the partial screening effect of existing boundary hedges.

Overall, there would be an unavoidable loss of the Green Belt’s openness in both respects. This would be in addition to the harm arising from the scheme’s inappropriateness and result in further conflict with the Framework and development plan’s principles in defending the purposes of the Green Belt.

The proposal would be positioned between the dwelling and the side boundary, set well back into the plot. Despite the site’s unusually generous width compared with neighbouring properties, and the considerable width of the proposal itself, this siting would nevertheless reflect the pattern of garages and outbuildings in the locality, which vary in their appearance. The use of red brickwork and clay roof tiles would also be suitably sympathetic to the surrounding context. While the flat roofed section would produce a somewhat disjointed overall form, this smaller element would be largely concealed from public view and would not detract from the suitability of the development’s appearance within its setting.

Accordingly, the proposal would not harm the character and appearance of the area and would comply with Policy DP7 of the LPP2 and Policy CP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy (adopted 15 October 2018). Taken together, these policies expect new development to be of a high-quality design that integrates effectively with its surroundings and reflects existing character, setting and local context. It would also comply in part and with respect to this main issue, Policy DP14 of LPP2 insofar as this seeks to protect the rural character and appearance of the locality.

The appellant highlights the potential to erect what it describes as a very similar ancillary outbuilding under permitted development rights, presenting this as a valid fall-back position. I have, however been provided with no definitive details of a such an alternative scheme, though I note the appellant’s indication that it would be slightly lower and marginally detached from the approved extension when compared to the appeal proposal.

The Courts have held that in considering the concept of a fall-back development as a material consideration, there should be a “real prospect” of it being implemented, and not just a theoretical possibility that the development might take place. It is also held that it is for the decision-maker to exercise their planning judgement on this matter and to ascribe the appropriate weight.

It would be highly impractical to construct an outbuilding in such close proximity to the extension as the appellant suggests, and the resulting extremely narrow gap would also hinder future maintenance. I am therefore not persuaded that this represents anything more than a theoretical possibility and so attach only limited weight to the fallback position described by the appellant.

I have found no harm to the character and appearance of the area, a neutral matter which does not weigh in the scheme’s favour.

The appeal scheme would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would also unacceptably reduce its openness. These harms attract substantial weight. The other considerations I have taken into account would not, for the reasons I have set out, be sufficient to clearly outweigh these harms, such that the very special circumstances required to justify the proposals do not exist.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations, including the approach of the Framework, which indicate that permission should be granted. 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.