Appeal 6005118

The appeal is dismissed.

Reference to “retrospective” in the description of the application is not a form of development. The application form confirms that the development has been completed, and I was able to view the detached single and 2-storey building, which is being used for residential accommodation, during my site visit.

There is planning permission1 for a replacement dwelling (the 2021 consent) on the site. I understand construction commenced in 2023 and just prior to this the appeal building was built to provide accommodation for the appellant and his family during the construction period. The intention is that once the replacement dwelling is occupied, the appeal building would provide annexe accommodation for staff or for other family members or dependants who would live on the site. I saw that the 2021 consent has commenced, though no construction work was taking place during my visit. I have determined the appeal on the basis of what is proposed.

A plan showing a revision to the appeal building has been included in the appeal. It appears to relate to post-application communication between the appellant and the Council rather than a specific request for it to be considered as part of this appeal. It includes a substantial change to the external appearance of the appeal building, and thereby also to the application. I am concerned that accepting the amended plan would cause procedural unfairness to interested parties and deprive those entitled to be consulted on an application the opportunity to make representation. As such, my decision is based on the development proposal before the Council when the application was determined. 1 Planning Decision Ref: 20/03482/PA

The main issues are: • whether the 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; • whether the development would constitute a residential annexe, and if so, whether it complies with the adopted policy relating to annexes; • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area; • the effect of the development on ecological interests; and • whether other considerations clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm as to amount to very special circumstances.

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 CS.10 of the Stratford-on-Avon District Core Strategy 2011 to 2031 (CS) resists inappropriate development in the Green Belt in accordance with national policy. 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.

Development within the Green Belt is inappropriate with the exceptions of the types of development listed in paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework. No exception listed under these paragraphs has been presented by the appellant.

There is agreement between the parties that the site constitutes previously developed land (PDL) in the Green Belt, and I find no reason to reach a different conclusion on this matter. As such, 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.

Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt, and it broadly has spatial and visual dimensions. Some of the external walls of a former outbuilding, referred to as the gate lodge on the 2021 consent site plan2, were utilised in the construction of the appeal building and the former adjacent kennels have also been demolished. In the absence of detailed drawings of the former gate lodge and kennels, approximate volume calculations have been used by the appellant. Initially suggested at 552 cubic metres, on the basis of a 3m high flat roof structure, this was not contested by the Council. The appellant claims the figure should actually be higher to reflect roof space and first floor accommodation. Looking at the photographs contained on page 6 of the appellant’s Appeal Statement, which include these former outbuildings, they appear to have had a 2 [name]. SAP.GW.21.03.LP.05 [name] relatively shallow-pitched roof, with the main structure having a hipped roof. Taking into account adjustments to reflect potential changes to eaves height and the pitched roof, the resulting uplift to the initial calculations would be modest.

Applying either approach and recognising that neither are fully accurate, the previous volume of these buildings is significantly less than the 843 cubic metres of the appeal building. This sizeable increase in built form on the site has resulted in substantial harm to spatial openness.

Although set against a backdrop of the edge of woodland, the appeal building, and in particular the centrally positioned first floor, is visible from [site address] over the front boundary hedgerows and the modern entrance walls and gates. Due to the increase in height and scale of the appeal building in this setting compared to the former outbuildings, moderate harm to visual openness has occurred.

In addition, due to the open land to the north and west, the appeal building does not represent limited infilling.

There is dispute between the parties as to the building referred to as the ‘retained annex and kennels’ in condition 18 of the 2021 permission. Page 4 of the appellant’s Appeal Statement contains a plan showing the former bungalow and an existing garage building to be demolished as well as the gate lodge being retained. Moreover, the approved layout for the 2021 permission shows the bungalow and garage building being replaced with the new dwelling and an entrance courtyard. It also illustrates the gate lodge remaining. On the basis of this information, condition 18 refers to the former gate lodge and kennels, whilst the existing garage building is to be demolished under the 2021 permission. Therefore, as the 2021 permission is under construction, the volume of the garage building is not available to compensate for the increase in size of the appeal building.

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

As a result of the significant increase in the size of the appeal building compared to the previous gate lodge and kennels, it means the development neither represents an extension or alteration of a building that does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, nor a replacement building that is not materially larger than the one it replaces. Therefore, it does not comply with exceptions 154 c) and d) 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. No compelling evidence has been put before me that there is a demonstrable unmet need for the annexe accommodation and as such it 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.

In conclusion, the 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 CS Policy CS.10.

From the development description and submission details, the application has been made on the basis of a residential annexe to the replacement dwelling. The submitted floor plans show a large open plan living area and 2 bedrooms to the ground floor with 2 further bedrooms at first floor. However, it is significantly smaller than the replacement dwelling under construction. Whilst it provides facilities for independent day-to-day living, it is a matter of fact and degree whether a separate planning unit from the main dwelling would result, requiring a judgement to be made in each case.

A familial or household staff relationship would exist between the appeal building and the replacement dwelling, resulting in likely regular comings and goings between the two buildings, at a short and convenient distance. Moreover, the appeal building uses the same driveway. Consequently, the appeal building would be neither remote nor isolated from the replacement dwelling and there would be clear physical and functional connections between the two.

CS Policy CS.20 requires, amongst other things, alterations and modifications to existing buildings and dwellings, including proposed annexes, to be of an appropriate scale and subservient in relation to the existing building. Whilst the development is subservient to the replacement dwelling under construction, as detailed before, it represents a significant increase in the size of the former gate lodge and kennels and as such, I find that it is not of an appropriate scale in the case presented in this appeal.

In the event of the appeal being allowed and not used as approved, or if there was a material change of use in the future to create a separate dwelling, then planning permission would be required, with the development at risk of enforcement action if such permission was not granted. The Council would be able to consider the merits of any such application.

Therefore, although I am satisfied that the development constitutes a residential annexe, I have found that it does not comply with SC Policy CS.20.

The relevant reason for refusal refers to CS Policy AS.10, which, in part, covers residential development within the countryside and villages. None of the relevant criteria relates to a residential annexe and as such this policy is not directly relevant to this main issue.

Limited details of the Arden Special Landscape Area, referenced in the Council’s case, are before me. I saw that dwellings and agricultural buildings are sporadically positioned along [site address] , surrounded by open fields and woodland. A number of these dwellings were large and set within generous grounds. An Arts and Crafts style was evident to some of these dwellings amongst a varied mix of other styles within the wider vicinity. I found that the appeal building’s contemporary design, with its timber cladding, responded to its setting on the edge of a woodland without harming the site or the wider rural landscape.

For the above reasons, the development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. I have found no conflict with [name].5, CS.9, CS.12 and CS.20, which collectively seek, amongst other things, high quality design that reflects the character and distinctiveness of the locality, including landscape character and quality.

As the demolition of the garage building is still to be undertaken, the Council is of the view that a Preliminary Roost Assessment (PRA) is required. However, as the removal of this structure forms part of the 2021 consent, which is under construction and there is a condition requiring agreed mitigation measures to be carried out, a PRA is not necessary in this case. Therefore, I am satisfied that there would be no significant harm to any protected species or their habitats.

The appeal building sits within extensive grounds with adjoining fields and woodland in the appellant’s control. Moreover, the appeal building incorporated part of the former gate lodge and is positioned on the same part of the site. Therefore, I am content that there would be sufficient space to accommodate a net gain in biodiversity, which could be secured by a planning condition in the event of the appeal being allowed.

To conclude, the development would have an acceptable effect on ecological interests and accord with CS Policy CS.6, which expects development to contribute towards a resilient ecological network throughout the district that supports ecosystems and provides ecological security for wildlife.

I recognised that there are personal circumstances relating to the appeal building being occupied in the manner it currently is and the delay with the construction of the replacement dwelling. Whilst sympathetic to these personal circumstances, I am mindful that the courts, in general, have taken the view that planning is concerned with land use in the public interest. Moreover, there is little evidence before me to demonstrate that these benefits could not be delivered in a less harmful way. Consequently, I afford this moderate weight.

The development has delivered an energy efficient building with associated economic benefits during its period of construction and occupation. Nevertheless, due to the small scale of the proposal, and thereby the small scale of these associated benefits, I give this limited weight.

I acknowledge that the appellant is looking to reduce the size of the replacement dwelling that might enable a similar volume to be used elsewhere on the site. Whilst a plan of an amended replacement dwelling was included in the appeal submission, there is no evidence of its approval and any resulting compensation being available for the appeal building. As such I have attributed this limited weight.

Earlier consents3 and a Lawful Development Certificate4 for a replacement dwelling and an annexe building are noted. Nevertheless, this would cause a conflict with the 2021 consent, which is currently under construction, and both consents could not be implemented. Therefore, I afford this limited weight. 3 Planning Decision Refs: 10/00219/FUL & 12/02640/EXT 4 Planning Decision Ref: 16/01704/LDE

I acknowledge the appellant’s concerns over the Council’s handling of the application, including differing views from different officers. However, this is not a matter that I can consider under a Section 78 planning appeal and does not alter my findings, in which I have had regard solely to the planning merits of 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 development’s inappropriateness and its effect on openness. The development would also not comply with adopted policy relating to residential annexes.

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 CS Policy CS.20.

The development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations put forward in support of the scheme do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.