Appeal 6004979

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: a) whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt; b) the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; c) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; and d) if the development is inappropriate, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

[site address] is a detached two-storey dwelling located on a substantial garden plot. It is one of some five dwellings comprising [site address] . The appellants propose the construction of a detached garage/store within the curtilage of the host property. Although the building is detached from the main dwelling, I will nevertheless treat it an extension for the purposes of Green Belt policy.

The appeal property is situated in the Metropolitan Green Belt. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) indicates that the fundamental aim of the Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. It goes on to state that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The Framework further establishes that development in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate subject to a number of exceptions as set out in paragraph 154. One such exception being an extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

The Framework does not define what constitutes a disproportionate addition. However, Policy PMD6 (1) of the Thurrock Local Development Framework Core Strategy and Policies for Management of Development ([name] 2015) (LDF), which includes the same exception, states that the extension of a building must not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. In the case of residential extensions this means no larger than two reasonably sized rooms or an equivalent amount. There is nothing to suggest that the LDF policy is inconsistent with the Framework and thus I have used the threshold in the policy.

The Council identified that the kitchen (18.25 sqm) and the living room (18.26 sqm), being the largest two rooms in the house, and considered them in this case to be the two reasonably sized rooms referred to in the policy. I find no reason to disagree with this conclusion. Together their floor area totals 36.51 sqm. They also calculated that the proposed garage and store would have a floor area of 54.22 sqm. Accordingly, they concluded that floor area of the garage/store would exceed the maximum limit of two reasonably sized rooms within the curtilage of the original dwelling by some 17.72 sqm. These figures are not disputed by the appellants.

Due to its scale and form of the proposed garage it would not appear subordinate to the main house. Further, the overall visual impact would in this case serve to exacerbate the disproportionate nature of the proposal resulting from the quantitative increase in footprint described above.

As a result, the proposal would amount to a disproportionate addition to the dwelling and therefore would not accord with the exception set out in paragraph 154 c) of the Framework. It would accordingly amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is by definition, harmful to the Green Belt, and I attach substantial weight to the harm it would cause. It would also fail to conform with LDF Policy PMD6 (1) which set out the Council’s approach to development in the Green Belt.

Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt that has spatial as well as visual aspects. Notwithstanding the residential development in which the appeal site is situated, the openness of the Green Belt is evident in its wider context.

The appeal proposal would increase the volume and mass of the existing built form on the site. [site address] is located on the edge of the development therefore despite the dwelling’s location as part of an existing development the scale and location of the proposal, although limited would impact on the openness of the Green Belt. The Framework identifies openness as being an essential character of the Green Belt accordingly this factor weighs against the proposal.

I appreciate that outbuildings are not uncommon in the area. Furthermore, I consider the design of the garage/store would reflect the design detailing of both the host property and the surrounding development. I also accept that the proposal performs well against some of the criteria relating to the design and siting of proposal found in the development plan.

However, the proposed garage/store, given its overall plan area, three-dimensional form, height and location, would on balance appear as a large and prominent outbuilding in this location on the edge of the residential development. Consequently, it would not appear as a subordinate outbuilding to the main house.

Accordingly, therefore it would not integrate well within its setting and thereby it would not contribute positively to the character, appearance or visual amenity of the area. The development would therefore not accord with the aims of [name] CSTP22, CSTP23 and PMD2 as well as the Framework as they relate to, along with other things, the protection and enhancement of the character of the area.

The Framework makes it clear that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The Council found the proposal would not cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers. Further, the [name] did not raise any objection to the development in terms of parking provision. Based on what I have seen and read I would not disagree with these findings. However, the absence of harm is a neutral factor in my considerations and, as such, I afford these matters little weight.

The other considerations in this case do not clearly outweigh the harm identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

For the reasons set out above, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh the conflict. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.