Appeal 6004761

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the banner heading above is taken from the application form with the reference to the previous permission and the permitted development rights removed as these matters are not required to describe the development proposed.

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

The appeal site falls within land defined as Green Belt. It comprises the rear gardens of two new dwellings which were, at the time of my visit, under construction. The gardens are enclosed along the rear boundary by existing fencing and a hedge. The new dwellings are positioned behind other housing in the area, on a site which, from the evidence, was previously developed land.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) explains that the construction of new buildings within the Green Belt is inappropriate development, subject to certain exceptions. None of the exceptions have been put to me. Therefore, the appeal proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would, consequently, conflict with Policy GB1 of the Coventry City Council Local Plan, 2017 (the LP) and would not comply with any of the exceptions set out in the Framework.

A fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to keep land permanently open, as set out in the Framework. Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt that has spatial as well as visual aspects. The appeal site would become the gardens of the two dwellings. It is within an area with a rural character and with an open and rural feel.

However, there are limited views from the appeal site across the countryside and the Green Belt and there would be limited views of the proposed buildings due to the existing boundary treatments. The buildings would not be prominent from public vantage points with only glimpsed views from the access road to the new houses and from the neighbouring properties. The proposed buildings would also be low in height, flat roofed and of appropriate materials. They would be situated close to the associated house and extend no further out into the countryside than other buildings in the immediate area. The proposal would, therefore, have very limited effects on the visual aspect of the openness of the Green Belt.

Nevertheless, the proposal would result in built development where there is presently none, even though I accept that there were previously buildings across more of the site. The spatial aspect of openness is an absence of development, rather than an absence of views of it. Even though there were previously buildings on the site these have since been demolished and the proposal would, therefore, unavoidably result in a reduction in spatial openness. The limited views of the appeal proposal would not alter the spatial harm.

As set out above, even though the visual impact would be limited, the proposal would have a spatial impact which would result in loss of the openness of the Green Belt. This would be contrary to the Framework which identifies the essential characteristics of Green Belts as their openness and their permanence. I give substantial weight to the harm to the Green Belt, including the harm to its openness, as is required by the Framework.

The proposal would, therefore, conflict with Policy GB1 of the LP which seeks to resist development which impacts negatively on the openness of the Green Belt.

The proposal would provide garden storage for the occupiers of each of the two dwellings. However, these are minor private benefits of little weight. I also saw that there are other outbuildings in the immediate area including a range of outbuildings associated with the dwelling on the side of the access road. Nevertheless, the presence of other outbuildings would not justify the proposal and would not justify further harm to the spatial aspect of openness.

The appeal before me is an appeal against a refusal to grant planning permission for the erection of two outbuildings. It is not an appeal against the imposition of the condition removing the permitted development rights. Therefore, that these buildings would otherwise have been permitted development is not a matter to which I can give weight in my decision. Furthermore, that other plots on the wider development do not have permitted development rights removed is not material to the consideration of the appeal before me. I note that the appellant has applied to remove the condition and has appealed against the refusal of that application. This would be a matter for a separate appeal decision.

Notwithstanding the concerns raised by third parties, I have no compelling evidence that the proposal would increase surface water drainage in the wider area. Nevertheless, this is a neutral matter and would not weigh in favour of the proposal.

The Government attaches great importance to Green Belt. In this case, I have found harm to the Green Belt by reason of the proposal being inappropriate development and its impact on openness. These matters attract substantial weight in accordance with the Framework which states that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It goes on to explain that very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

Against the totality of the harm I have identified, the other considerations advanced by the appellant are not sufficient, either individually or cumulatively, to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. The proposal would thus conflict with the Green Belt policies in the Framework, and Policy GB1 of the LP.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole, including the Framework. There are no other material considerations that would indicate that the proposal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.