Appeal 6004033

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.

I have taken the description of development from the planning application form albeit, I have removed the words ‘retrospective householder application’ for the purposes of the banner heading as they are not a description of development.

The proposal is described as ‘retrospective’ on the application form and Council’s decision notice. However, when I undertook my site visit, the garage was only partially complete. My recommendation is therefore based upon the submitted drawings and supporting documents that accompany this appeal.

The main issues are: i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; ii) the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and iii) 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 necessary to justify the proposal.

Policy CS.10 of the Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy 2011 to 2031 (2016) (CS) sets out that the Council will uphold the purposes of the Green Belt by resisting inappropriate development within it, except in cases where very special circumstances are justified in accordance with the provisions of national policy. In that regard, Paragraph 154 of the Framework makes it clear that, other than in specified exemptions, development in the Green Belt is inappropriate. One of the exceptions is paragraph 154(c) which permits 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.

What is meant by disproportionate is not defined in the Framework. Policy CS.10 suggests that ‘a small-scale extension or alteration of a building’ is not inappropriate in principle. In the absence of any alternative definition, this is pertinent to my considerations. What might constitute disproportionate is likely to involve various factors including, for example, a comparison of the resultant volume, floorspace or footprint when compared with the size of the original building and will ultimately be a matter of planning judgement.

The size of the original building in this appeal is undisputed by the parties, comprising a replacement dwelling that was granted planning permission in 2016, with a cubic area of 465m3. The parties also agree that the dwelling has been previously extended, with the volume of that ‘two-storey side extension’ extension equating to 172m3.

I agree with the appellant that the proposed garage in this case would function as a typical domestic outbuilding, ancillary to the main house. As a normal domestic adjunct, it should be treated as an addition to the original building. The volume of the proposed garage is disputed, with the Council asserting this would result in a 134m3 building and the appellant contending it would be 78.62m3.

Even, taking the lesser figure advanced by the appellant, the cumulative volume arising from the appeal proposal, in addition to the earlier two-storey extension, would amount to 250.62m3. As set out by the appellant, this would equate to an increase in volume over the original building of 54%, thereby more than half of the volume of the original building.

In addition to this substantial increase in volume, there is no evidence before me to suggest that there would not also be marked cumulative increases in footprint and floorspace over and above the size of the original building. In the circumstances, I find that the proposal would result in disproportionate additions to the original building and so would not meet the exception at Paragraph 154(c) of the Framework.

The proposal would therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, contrary to CS Policy CS.10 and the Framework.

The Framework sets out that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; with the essential characteristics of Green Belts being their openness and their permanence.

The proposal would be single-storey in height. Nevertheless, the bulk and mass of the ‘2 port’ garage would inevitably have a spatial effect resulting in new built form where a building did not previously exist.

The garage’s position set back from the front boundary, the generous size of the front garden and the close siting of the neighbouring outbuilding would to some extent reduce the garage’s visual prominence. Even so, as the appellant acknowledges, the roof of the garage would likely be visible in views from just outside the front of the appeal site on [site address] . The existing hedge also provides the primary form of visual containment to plot frontage and, given the potential for pruning, thinning, dieback or removal over time, it cannot be relied upon to provide permanent screening of the garage. Moreover, the garage would also be appreciable in glimpses through roadside vegetation, due to the low height of the appeal site’s northern boundary fence, particularly during winter months when deciduous planting would be without leaf.

Taking these spatial and visual factors into account, the proposal would result in a modest effect on the openness of the Green Belt.

I have had regard to the previous appeal decision ([name]/J3720/D/22/3307388) in Tanworth-In-Arden referred to by the appellant. However, from the limited information before me, this related to a two-storey extension and not a detached garage. Given the differing form and site-specific context it is unclear whether the assessment in that case was comparable including but not limited to the effect on openness. I also note the references to other examples of outbuildings in the Green Belt in excess of a 54% increase in volume over their respective original building. Again, I do not have the full details or site-specific circumstances of those cases before me and so cannot be certain of the context in which they might have received planning permission.

The appellant has highlighted appeal decisions relating to the siting of garages relative to their host dwellings. However, in character and appearance terms the Council Officer’s report did not identify harm in terms of the position of the garage forward of the dwelling and no specific harm was indicated regarding the Arden Special Landscape Area, the historic or natural environment, neighbouring amenity, highways, parking or access. Based on the evidence and observations from my site visit, I agree with these findings. However, these matters are distinct from an assessment as to whether a proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and effects on its openness. Therefore, the absence of harm in those other respects is of neutral consequence.

With regards to the suggestion that the proposal would not conflict with the five purposes of the Green Belt, the Framework is clear that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it meets the specified exceptions.

The proposal would constitute 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 proposal 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. The other considerations before me attract no more than limited weight.

In conclusion and on balance, the substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm is not clearly outweighed by other considerations and therefore the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. For the reasons given, 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.