Appeal 6004151

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The appeal site comprises a detached bungalow and its grounds. The latter are fairly extensive, providing a drive and parking area in front of the bungalow, a grassed area to the side and a garden to the rear together with an additional area of land dropping down to a stream. There is a variation in land levels within the site. The bungalow is one of a small grouping of dwellings in a rural setting. [site address] is a country lane with trees and hedges along its boundaries.

The Framework explains that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It makes it clear that development is considered inappropriate unless it satisfies one of the exceptions cited in paragraphs 154 and 155. Paragraph 154 d) of the Framework allows the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. This is reflected in Local Plan1 Policy PG 3 with additional advice for replacement buildings in the Green Belt and in the open countryside set out in 1 Cheshire East Council – Cheshire East Local Plan – Local Plan Strategy 2010 – 2030 July 2017. Policy RUR 13 of the Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (SADPD)2.

The existing dwelling is a single storey two/three bedroomed bungalow with an integral double garage. The proposal would replace it with a two storey, four bedroomed house with a detached three car garage. The proposed dwelling would be noticeably larger than the existing bungalow and the proposed garage would be a new building. The replacement dwelling would have a larger footprint and be visually larger due to its additional height and bulk. The garage would introduce a building where currently there is none. There is a small timber garden room and terrace in the rear garden which would be removed.

Both parties agree that the proposed dwelling would be materially larger than the one it would replace and therefore the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. I concur with this assessment. The harm caused by inappropriateness carries substantial weight.

The Framework sets out in paragraph 142 that the fundamental aim of Green Belt Policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Whilst the proposed dwelling would have a similar width to the existing bungalow, it would be taller and deeper. This larger bulk and massing would have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

Furthermore, the proposed garage would be a substantial sized building located in a part of the site which is currently open and free from any buildings. It would extend further out than the existing group of dwellings and whilst its impact would be lessened by the drop in land levels and by existing and potentially proposed landscaping, it would spatially and visually lessen the openness of this part of the site. The removal of the existing garden room has little benefit in comparing openness as it is a low key garden structure of limited impact in this context as opposed to the more substantial garage proposed.

I conclude therefore, that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the replacement dwelling and the garage would separately and cumulatively result in moderate harm to the openness of the Green Belt in both spatial and visual terms. This would conflict with the Framework and Local Plan Policy PG 3 and SADPD Policy RUR 13.

The appeal site benefits from a Certificate of Lawfulness for two side extensions, a porch and a garage together with two [name] for an additional storey and a rear extension3. Copies of these decisions have not been submitted although unreferenced plans have. These approvals would allow the bungalow to be enlarged resulting in a two storey house with single storey extensions to the side and a large single storey extension to the rear together with a detached garage. The enlargement of the house and the erection of a garage under these approvals have been presented by the appellant as a fall-back position. 2 Cheshire East Council – Cheshire East Local Plan – Site Allocations and Development Policies Document Adopted December 2022 (SADPD). 3 [name]: 22/2771M; 22/2780M; 22/2794M

An application for the demolition of the existing bungalow and erection of a replacement dwelling and a detached garage was refused in 2025 and an appeal against this refusal was subsequently dismissed4. The fall-back position in that case was not accepted by the Inspector as clearly outweighing the harm caused by inappropriateness. The proposal subject to this appeal incorporates amendments to that previous refusal/dismissal. These include setting the dwelling further back from the lane, incorporating a lower ridge height and changes to the visual impact and mass, fenestration and design features. Also, the garage would be reduced in size.

The Council has produced calculations for the differences between the proposal before me and the fall-back position. The appellant agrees with these figures save for a few rounding calculations. I have no reason to question these. The proposed dwelling would have a smaller footprint, floorspace and volume than the fall-back dwelling. However, a substantial amount of the development for the fall-back position would be single storey, with only the upper floor of the existing bungalow adding space at first floor level. Comparing the proposed dwelling, there would be a greater massing at first floor level, adding substantial depth to the dwelling. The Council’s calculations refer to outbuildings which I have taken to mean the garage. The volume of the garage would be smaller than the fall-back garage but the proposed garage would be taller.

Overall, I can see that mathematically the proposal would result in less footprint, floorspace and volume than that which can reasonably be considered as a fall-back position. However, due to the overall size and massing of the proposed dwelling, especially at first floor level, and by the addition of a new garage, the impact on openness would be greater. The Council accept that the fall-back position could be implemented and I agree with this insofar as approvals have been granted. The fall-back plans show the first floor of the dwelling with five bedrooms but the ground floor with the two side extensions and large rear extension is shown in outline form only. It is not clear how rooms could be laid out in these additional spaces, although that would be a matter for the appellant to decide. In any event, I have no evidence upon which to determine that the fall-back proposals would not be implemented.

In design terms the proposal would be a more cohesive development unlike the fall-back extensions which would appear as add-ons, especially the large rear extension. However, I consider the benefit in this regard small as the large rear extension would not be easily visible from the lane and the side extensions would be single storey only. The benefits to the character and appearance of the area would, at best, only carry modest weight.

The Framework makes it clear that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm, by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other circumstances.

I have found that the proposal would be inappropriate development. Harm caused by inappropriateness carries substantial weight. The fall-back scheme could legally 4 LPA Planning Application Ref: 23/2307M and Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/24/3344408. be implemented and there is a likelihood that some, if not all of it, could be built. Openness would be harmed whether by the fall-back position or the proposal before me. However, although mathematically, the proposal would have less of an impact, visually its impact would be greater for the reasons I have set out above.

In the cases of inappropriate development, the Green Belt test is whether the other considerations clearly outweigh the harm. [name] have stated, harm caused by inappropriateness carries substantial weight. I appreciate that following the previous refusal and dismissed appeal, the appellant has made changes to the dwelling and the garage. However, these quite simply do not go far enough. I do not consider that the differences between the proposed scheme and the fall-back position is such that it clearly outweighs the substantial harm I have identified.

I therefore conclude that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the very special circumstances required to clearly outweigh the harm caused by inappropriateness, and any other harm, including openness, do not exist. This would conflict with the Framework and Local Plan Policy PG 3 and SADPD Policy RUR 13.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Consequently, for the above reasons the appeal should be dismissed.