Appeal 6004424

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 for the annexe. Since it has been built and appears to correspond with the submitted drawings, the scheme seeks retrospective planning permission.

The annexe provides a kitchen/living room, dining room and downstairs bathroom, an ensuite and two bedrooms at first floor thus providing facilities for independent day to day living. A self-contained annexe does not necessarily result in a separate planning unit from the main dwelling. It is the manner of the occupation and the degree of functional interdependence that is determinative. Although it is not physically attached to the main dwelling, it would share the large rear garden of the property, the access and parking areas. No means of enclosure have been erected around the outbuilding separating it from the main dwelling. It would not be served by a separate gas or electricity meter and the family member to be cared for would continue to share family meals within the main dwelling.

I have no reason to doubt that this would reflect the intended and actual use of the accommodation. No development plan policies have been identified to me that specifically address or restrict the provision of annexe accommodation. I have no evidence to suggest that the annexe is located within a separate planning unit other than being part of the residential curtilage of the main dwelling and being sited within the rear garden of the property. I have proceeded to consider the appeal accordingly.

With the above in mind, the mains issues are a) whether the annexe is inappropriate development in the Green Belt; b) its effect on the openness of the Green Belt; an c) 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 required to justify the development.

Policy LO8 of the Sevenoaks District Council Core Strategy (2011) (CS) seeks to ensure that the extent of the Green Belt will be maintained. The Development in the Green Belt Supplementary Planning Document (2015) (SPD) states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent uncontrolled spread of urban areas by keeping land permanently open. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework sets out that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate other than in the case of specified exceptions. An exception at Paragraph 154 g) is the limited infilling or partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

Annex 2 of the Framework provides a definition of previously developed land which includes land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land. It states that previously developed land excludes land in built-up areas such as residential gardens. The Council contend that the site cannot be considered to constitute previously developed land for this reason, however, the appellant disagrees, citing that the site is in a rural location and therefore, does comprise previously developed land having regard to the definition.

A residential garden outside a built-up area may, in certain circumstances, be regarded as previously developed land. However, whether a particular garden lies within or outside a built-up area for the purposes of this assessment is a matter of judgement. The definition set out in Annex 2 of the Framework does not specify the scale or extent of a built-up area.

The appeal site forms part of a small cluster of dwellings with associated outbuildings, set within large plots and characterised by generous separation distances between properties. Although located on the outskirts of Kemsing, the site nonetheless relates physically and functionally to this cluster. The appeal site thus lies within a built-up area for the purposes of the definition in Annex 2 of the Framework. As a result, the residential garden in which the annexe would be sited is excluded from the definition of previously developed land, and the proposal thus does not benefit from the provisions of paragraph 154 g).

Further, the appeal scheme would not be considered acceptable under Grey Belt provisions since it is cited outside of a settlement that has sustainable access to supportive services and there is no evidenced unmet need that it would satisfy. The annexe is therefore inappropriate development as defined in the Framework. This would be contrary thereto, as well as the Green Belt protection aims of Policy LO8 of the CS which I have set out above.

The Framework explains that the essential characteristics of the Green Belts are their openness and their permanence, which have a spatial and visual aspect.

The annexe is in the rear garden, approximately 50 metres from the dwelling on elevated ground, adjoining an area of woodland. It is on an area of land that was previously devoid of built form. Planning permission was granted in 2018 for a stable. Ground works were commenced, but the block was not constructed. The permitted stable building would have been modest in nature and of a smaller footprint, height and overall scale than the annexe that has been built.

The existing boundary trees, hedges and fencing provide some screening of the annexe from [site address] and the wider area. Therefore, visually, the effect on openness is limited. Nevertheless, the building has a substantial footprint, obvious height and introduces built development into previously open land. In spatial terms, this had an unavoidably reducing effect on the openness of the Green Belt. This would be the source of additional harm thereto and contrary to the Framework’s position on Green Belt’s essential characteristics as I have set them out.

The annexe is occupied by a family member who requires care and support from the rest of the family living in the host dwelling. The Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) contained in section 149 of The Equality Act 2010 sets out the need to eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation, and to advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not.

This decision has the potential to affect a person with a protected characteristic for the purposes of the PSED and the possibility that the appellant may have to consider alternative options. That said, there is no substantive evidence pertaining to why the needs of said family member cannot be accommodated within the existing family home or whether they could be housed in such a way as to reduce the harms I have found above. I am mindful of the implications of the aforementioned duties, but with my findings on the matter in mind I ascribe the personal circumstance moderate weight.

Since the appeal site is within a National Landscape (NL), I am mindful of the need to conserve and enhance its natural beauty and seek to further the purposes for which these areas are designated. The Framework requires great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in NLs. Given the immediate setting of the appeal scheme and the cluster of buildings in which it finds itself I see no compelling reason to take a different view to the Council on the scheme’s effects in regard to the NL. This lack of harm would not however weigh in favour of the appeal. It would be neutral. As would be the case in regard to neighbours’ living conditions or the design and appearance of the annexe.

The scheme constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt and would result in harm to its openness. These are worthy of substantial weight as per the Framework. Notwithstanding the importance of the other considerations I have assessed above they, cumulatively, attract moderate weight. Such that they are incapable of clearly outweighing the Green Belt harms. Accordingly, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development have not been demonstrated. With this and the above in mind, the appeal scheme conflicts with the development plan and material considerations, including the approach of the Framework, do not indicate an outcome other than in accordance. 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.