Appeal 6004235

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner above is taken from the application form but has been shortened in the interests of precision.

I note that the development has already been carried out. The outbuilding appears to have been constructed as shown on the plans before me, but for the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on the submitted plans.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, are clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal.

The appeal site lies within the Green Belt identified in the Council’s Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development document (as amended) 2015 (CSPMD). Policy CSSP4 of the CSPMD seeks to maintain the purpose, function and open character of the Green Belt. Policy PMD6 of the CSPMD states that the extension of a building in the Green Belt must not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building which for residential extensions means no larger than two reasonably sized rooms or equivalent. This is reiterated in the Council’s Residential Alterations and [name] 2017.

CSPMD Policy PMD6 is broadly consistent with paragraph 154(c) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). This states that the extension of a building is not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

The Council states that the two reasonably sized room allowance is calculated by assessing the floorspace of habitable rooms original to the site. The total original habitable floorspace is divided by the number of habitable rooms, with the result multiplied by two to determine the maximum allowable increase. The floorspace of any subsequent extensions or outbuildings together with the proposed floorspace is deducted from this allowance to determine whether the proposal falls within the defined proportionate limit.

The appeal property comprises a detached two storey dwelling with a single storey rear extension1 located within a modern housing estate. In this case, the Council calculates the two reasonably sized room allowance to be 23.1m 2 which the existing rear extension already slightly exceeds.

The proposal is for a sizeable outbuilding located close to the extended house, with a hot tub area open on one side. The plans indicate it having over 31m2 floorspace, though the appellant states that when taking account of the roof overhang on one side, the floorspace is around 21m2. Whichever figure is used, when viewed cumulatively alongside the existing extension, due to the increase in volume and floorspace, the appeal scheme results in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building.

Consequently, the proposal conflicts with the requirements of Policy PMD6 of the CSPMD. It does not constitute an exception as set out under paragraph 154(c) of the Framework. Thus, it is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and, by definition, harms the Green Belt.

As set out in the Framework, the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Openness is the counterpart of urban sprawl and often connotates the absence of development. It is an open textured term and can have both spatial and visual dimensions.

The rear garden in which the outbuilding is sited previously contained a small open sided pergola. As the proposed structure is a significantly larger and more substantial construction than the previous pergola, it inevitably causes a loss of spatial openness.

Only a very small part of the outbuilding is visible from [site address] due to its position behind the side gate and a neighbouring garage. However, it is visible from neighbouring properties. As such, the proposed outbuilding also impacts on visual openness. Therefore, there is a demonstrable loss of openness, in both visual and spatial terms.

The appellant has invested significantly in the project and does not have funding to remove the outbuilding which it is stated would be a waste of materials. 1 Approved under planning application ref 22/00277/HHA

The company which installed the structure advised the appellant that planning permission would not be needed based on the building size and the proportion of the curtilage occupied. Nonetheless, the original planning permission2 imposed restrictions on permitted development, including sheds. Therefore, planning permission is required in this case.

The Framework indicates that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. There are also adverse impacts on its openness. Substantial weight should be given to the harm caused to the Green Belt and very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations.

I accord modest weight to the investment in the project and limited weight to the need for planning permission. However, the other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and loss of openness. Thus, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist. As such, it is contrary to the Framework.

For the above reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework and the very special circumstances test therein, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.