Appeal 6004674

The appeal is dismissed.

The above description of development is taken from the application form. However, the Council has used an amended wording on the decision notice to refer to a change of use of land to extend the existing garden associated with The Laurels with erection of boundary fence and hardstanding. This is a more accurate description which I also note the appellant has entered on the appeal form.

I observed on my site visit that the change of use had already occurred with the fencing erected and hardstanding installed. I have dealt with the appeal on the basis that planning permission is being sought retrospectively for the change of use and associated operational development.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appeal property is located within open countryside at the junction of [address] and [address]. There is a public house located on the opposite side of [address] and dwellings are sporadically located along the surrounding rural roads. Boundary treatments are typically low hedgerows that provide views into the open fields beyond. The appeal site includes a large, detached property which has vehicular accesses onto both [address] and [address]. Closed board wooden fencing provides the boundary treatment to the site on the frontage of both roads.

On my site visit it was evident that there was a significant length of boundary fence along the side boundary to secure the extended garden. This is highly visible along [address]. Given its height and choice of materials the fence appears as an obtrusive and discordant feature which is at odds with the open rural appearance of the area which is characterised by fields bound by hedgerows.

It is accepted that there is a hedgerow located in front of the fencing however this is too sporadic and of insufficient height to soften views of the fencing. It has been suggested this harm could be addressed through both a reduction in height of the fence and additional roadside planting. However, this would not address the fundamental change that has occurred to the appearance of the parcel land which would be even more apparent with a lower boundary treatment.

The change of use has more than doubled the size of the plot and amounts to a significant encroachment into the countryside. Whilst public views are limited beyond the adjacent roads this does not reduce the intrinsic harm to the countryside that has occurred. The change in use is evident from the goal posts and tennis net that have been erected within the extended rear garden. The introduction of garden paraphernalia has had a harmful urbanising effect on what would have previously been an open field free from any built form. The addition of hardstanding within the extended garden which has been utilised for the parking of vehicles also gives a more urban appearance to the site.

The appellant has argued that the original plot size was notably smaller than those in the surrounding area. Whilst there may be nearby dwellings that have larger gardens, given the limited number of dwellings in the vicinity it cannot be argued that large gardens are a key characteristic of the area. I have certainly seen nothing to suggest that the original layout of the dwelling and garden was harmful to the character and appearance of the area, unlike the current extended garden.

By virtue of the incursion into the countryside and urbanising appearance the development has materially harmed the character and appearance of the area. This conflicts with policies ENV 6 and STRAT 9 of the [site address] Council Local Plan (CWCCLP) Part 1 and policies DM 3 and DM 21 of the [name] 2. Amongst other matters, these policies require that development should respect the character of the countryside and achieve a sense of place through appropriate layout and design and specifically resist the extension of residential garden land in the countryside.

The appellant has indicated that the larger garden is required to provide a safer place for children to play that does not conflict with parking area and is further away from the junction where there have been accidents historically. Prior to the extension, the plot was already of a notable size which provided ample play space away from the junction and parking area. Furthermore, almost all visitors would be aware that there are children on site and are therefore unlikely to use excessive speed around parking areas. Whilst weight is attached to the provision of additional play space away from the junction no rationale has been provided as why such a substantial increase in garden area is required.

Four appeal decisions within the [site address] Council area have been submitted by the appellant. It has been asserted that they represent similar examples of small-scale curtilage extensions. However, as the plot has more than doubled in size, I do not consider the extension of this garden to be small-scale. Pertinently, no plans or supporting information have been provided by the appellant. Without further details it is not possible to understand how relevant they are to the current appeal. Appeal decisions are site specific and fact sensitive and I therefore can only attach very limited weight to these decisions.

The appellant contends that the extended garden already falls within the residential curtilage. However, this does not explain why the planning application has been submitted. [name] have no reason to doubt the appellant’s ownership of the land, ownership does not equate to lawful use, and I have no evidence to demonstrate that the use as garden is lawful.

It has been highlighted that if the garden use had continued for 10 years the appellant could have applied for a certificate of lawful use. However, no evidence has been provided to suggest that the use has continued for this length of time. Whilst the appellant always has the option to apply for a Certificate under S191 of the Act, no such certificate exists at present and it is not my role, in the context of a s78 appeal, to make a determination on lawfulness. Lawfulness has not been demonstrated, and I note the appellant’s admission that the extended garden has only been in use for 4 years. There is no fallback argument being put to me directly, but even if it were it would carry very limited weight in any event.

The appellant has indicated that the Development Plan is out of date. Paragraph 232 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicates that existing policies should not be considered out-of-date simply because they were adopted or made prior to the publication of this Framework. The paragraph then goes on to state that due weight should be given to them, according to their degree of consistency with this Framework (the closer the policies in the plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given). It is accepted that the CWCLP part 1(2015) and part 2 (2019) were both adopted before the current Framework came into force. However, the relevant policies in this case relate to matters of achieving high quality design and ensuring that development is sympathetic to local character which are entirely consistent with the Framework. Therefore, statutory weight can be afforded to these policies for the purposes of Framework paragraph 232. Given that I have found the most important policies not to be out-of-date, paragraph 11 d) of the Framework is not engaged.

I have concluded that the garden extension and associated development have caused material harm to the character and appearance of this rural location. I attach substantial weight to this harm and the conflict with the relevant policies of

I have taken account of the benefits advanced by the appellant, including improved safety for their children. However, important though they clearly are to the appellant, these considerations do not justify the harm or persuade me that the development is acceptable.

For the reasons given above, I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.