Appeal 6004729

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are whether the proposed development would: • be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers of plot 3, with particular reference to potential for noise and disturbance; and • whether other considerations clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm as to amount to very special circumstances.

The appeal site is located within the Green Belt. The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The Framework states that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Policy DM.22 of the Wyre Forest District Local Plan 2016-2036 (LP) sets out that development will not be permitted, except in very special circumstances, or unless one of a number of listed criteria apply. This policy pre-dates the latest version of the Framework and I have had regard to it insofar as it is consistent with the Framework.

Exceptions are identified in paragraph 154 of the Framework where development would be regarded as not inappropriate in the Green Belt. There is agreement between the parties that the appeal site represents previously developed land (PDL). Based on the evidence before me and from my own observations, I find no reason to reach a different conclusion. Therefore, paragraph 154 g) is relevant as it relates to limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of PDL, which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

Located to the rear of [site address] , which has been converted into flats, the existing single storey garage block would be demolished and replaced with a single storey building containing 3 dwellings, each with 2 bedrooms, alongside an existing single storey building that contains a number of dwellings. Formal parking spaces would also be laid out on predominantly existing areas of hardstanding.

Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt, and it broadly has spatial and visual dimensions. Unchallenged claims by the Council conclude that the proposed building’s volume would be 187% larger than the existing garage block, including 0.86m higher. The significant increase in built form on the appeal site would result in substantial harm to spatial openness.

Much of the rear section of the appeal site is screened by high evergreen vegetation. However, the end gable of the existing garage block is visible down the driveway, and there is a noticeable absence of buildings between it and [site address] . The proposed building’s orientation, running parallel with the direction of [address], would erode this gap. As a result, there would be a perceptible increase in built form between [site address] and the site’s eastern boundary from the public highway, the property opposite the driveway, as well as properties within the wider complex. There would also be a modest increase in comings and goings due to a greater number of residents. Overall, there would be moderate harm to visual openness.

In addition, due to the distance to the buildings to the north and the open land to the east, the proposal would not represent limited infilling.

Taking all these factors together the appeal scheme would have both spatial and visual impacts, which would result in substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Consequently, it would not comply with exception 154 g) of the Framework.

Paragraph 155 of the Framework also sets out that certain types of development are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, subject to four criteria. Criterion (b) relates to a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed. The appellant has not contested the Council stance that it has a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites, and there is no evidence of the [name] being below the relevant thresholds. Therefore, an unmet need for the type of development has not been demonstrated and fails criterion (b). As all the criteria of paragraph 155 must be satisfied, the proposal would not fall under this exception, and I have not considered the other criteria.

I note the Chaddesley Corbett Parish housing needs survey, which informed the Chaddesley Corbett Neighbourhood Plan 2022-2036 (CCNP), as well as claims that no new housing sites were allocated in the LP for the parish and a limited number of new dwellings have been approved. However, in addition to this survey pre-dating the LP, it is excluded from the scope of footnote 56 of the Framework.

The findings of the Council’s Green Belt Review (September 2016), which significantly pre-dates the LP, have not swayed me away from my findings. Overall, it found the relevant land parcel made a contribution to Green Belt Purposes.

In conclusion, the proposed development would not accord with any of the exceptions contained in paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework and is therefore inappropriate development in the Green Belt in terms of the Framework and LP Policy DM.22.

I observed a large number of wheelie bins located along the driveway to the side, as well as to the rear, of [site address] . Given the size of the proposed bin store, it is reasonable to consider that it could accommodate significantly more than the wheelie bins for the 3 proposed dwellings. Potentially storing such a number of wheelie bins at this location would focus activities such as the disposal, and the collection, of waste. Associated comings and goings, at different times of the day, past the bedroom windows of plot 3 would be appreciable to the occupiers of that unit. Furthermore, the dwelling’s front door would directly face the large bin store.

Although, it is argued that the details of the bin store’s design could be covered by a planning condition, it does not lead me away from my findings on its size and close proximity to plot 3.

For the above reasons, the proposed development would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers of plot 3, with particular reference to potential for noise and disturbance. This would conflict with LP Policy DM.24, which requires proposals to address, amongst other things, neighbouring amenity.

The second reason for refusal refers to LP Policy SP.20, which relates to design quality and local distinctiveness. As such, this policy is not directly relevant to this

The proposal would deliver 3 residential units, suitable for older occupiers, to the housing supply, the type of which is featured in the Chaddesley Corbett Parish housing needs survey, on PDL. There would also be associated economic benefits during the period of construction and once the units are occupied, as well as enhancements to biodiversity. Nevertheless, the limited scale of the proposal means that I afford these benefits moderate weight. I have considered paragraphs 61 and 73 of the Framework, which emphasise the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes and the important contribution small and medium sized sites can make to meeting the housing requirement of an area. I am also mindful that small and medium sized sites are often built out relatively quickly.

My attention has been drawn to a previous approval1 for 2 dwellings on the site. On the basis that this consent has lapsed and was for a smaller building than that before me, I attribute this limited weight. 1 Planning Decision Ref: 20/0503/FUL

[site address] is a [name] listed building and dates from the mid-18th century. Its significance rests primarily with its age and architectural detailing. Due to the size and positioning of the proposal adjacent to late-20th century additions to [site address] , it would preserve the setting and the significance of the listed building and the ability to appreciate it. A lack of harm in this respect is a neutral consideration that weighs neither for nor against the proposal.

Paragraph 153 of the Framework is clear that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. I have found that there would be harm to the Green Belt by reason of the proposal’s inappropriateness and its effect on openness. The proposal would also fail to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers of Plot 3.

The Framework states that the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm resulting from the development must be clearly outweighed by other considerations for permission to be granted. The other considerations in this case, as detailed above, do not have sufficient cumulative weight to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm. As such, the very special circumstances necessary to justify this development do not exist. This would be contrary to the Framework and LP Policy DM.22.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.