Appeal 6005254

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are:

whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies including the effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt,

the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, 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 is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt wherein policy SP4 of the Central Bedfordshire Local Plan 2021 (CBLP) sets out that development proposals will be assessed in accordance with government guidance contained in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). For the purposes of this appeal, I have taken this to mean Chapter 13 of the Framework and related sections of the PPG.

Paragraph 142 of the Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Paragraph 154 establishes that new buildings would be inappropriate unless it meets a listed exception. The appellant has put forward the proposal under the provisions of paragraph 154 d) of the Framework. This explains that the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use, and not materially larger than the one it replaces, is one such exception.

The parties have both put forward floorspace, volumetric and height comparisons between the existing dwelling and the one proposed. Some of these include references to an outbuilding which has not been constructed but has the benefit of lawful development certificate1. I will return to this comparison in due course. However, purely on the basis of an assessment of the existing building and the proposed new dwelling, it is quite apparent that the proposal is larger when considered in floorspace, volumetric and height terms.

Not only this, but the building would also have a grander scale and substantially more imposing presence than the existing building. It does not occupy a particularly prominent site or location but nevertheless it would still be visible from ample surrounding viewpoints; from along [site address] and from nearby footpaths and fields. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposed dwelling would be materially larger than the existing building it replaces and as it a result it would have a harmful impact upon the openness of the Green Belt in both a spatial and visual dimension.

The appellant has put forward the argument that there is a legitimate fallback position, namely that a lawful development certificate has been granted for the construction of an outbuilding. This is a large, single storey detached structure that would be positioned to the west of the existing house and contain an indoor swimming pool and garage. When taken cumulatively, the existing house and outbuilding would have an overall floorspace and volume that is comparable to the proposed dwelling.

When considering a proposed fallback position, it needs to be established that there should be a greater than a theoretical possibility that the development might take place. This is having regard to the judgements and principles set out in Gambone v SSCLG v [name] [2014] EWHC 952 (Admin) and Zurich Assurance Ltd v North Lincolnshire District Council [2012] with the latter having been put forward by the appellant. In this instance, the lawful development certificate confirms that the structure would be lawful. Moreover, a swimming pool is part of the proposal for the replacement house. In this context, it seems there is a greater than theoretical possibility that, were permission refused for this proposal, that the outbuilding may well proceed anyway. I, therefore, attach substantial weight to this fallback position.

Even so, the resultant effects created by the existing house plus proposed outbuilding would be very different to the proposed replacement dwelling. The replacement dwelling, as I have set out above, would be taller and wider and of much grander scale than the existing dwelling. The pool wing to the proposed dwelling would elongate the building to a significant degree. [name] accept that the combined width of the existing dwelling and proposed outbuilding would be slightly wider, they would still be two separate buildings, and both would have a more diminutive scale. The overall height, including the amount of built form above single storey height, would be lower. Therefore, even taking into account the effects of the outbuilding, the proposed replacement dwelling would still be materially larger.

The appellant’s suggested figures indicate that the proposed replacement dwelling would have a lesser floorspace than the existing house and proposed outbuilding. 1 Council ref: CB/20/03951/[name], I am unable to find harm to the openness of the Green Belt in a spatial dimension. However, the increased overall mass and presence of the built form means that there is still harm to the Green in a visual dimension.

Therefore, the proposed replacement dwelling conflicts with policy SP4 of the CBLP and paragraph 154 d) the Framework. This is even when taking into account the fallback position. The development still conflicts with the same policy of the development plan and paragraph of the Framework.

I have been mindful of the appeal decisions put forward by the appellant relating to [address], Chawridge Lane2 and The Woodlands, Bunny Hill3. In relation to the former, I do not disagree with the appellant’s commentary here and I have approached this decision considering all matters including volume of the building(s) alongside other indicative matters. In relation to the latter case, I note this was allowed under paragraph 154 g) of the Framework and the appellant has explained that this is not an argument that they are pursing with regard to this proposal.

I have further considered the appeal cited in the Statement submitted with the planning application that pertains to Orchard Cottage4. However, this decision was not included in evidence and in any case, it raises points relating to fallback which I have not disputed in my reasoning above.

The appellant has indicated that they are not pursuing the proposal under other parts of paragraphs 154 or paragraph 155 of the Framework. I have, nevertheless, had regard to these paragraphs. In relation to paragraph 155, the Council has expressed concerns only in relation to paragraph 155 c. insofar as the site is not in a sustainable location. I agree, the site, despite relative proximity to the built up area of Dunstable and environs is not well connected due to a lack of pedestrian footways along roads, public transport or footpaths. There would therefore be a distinct reliance on the use of the private motor vehicle to access the site and thus the requirements of paragraph 155 c. are not met.

The existing house comprises a two storey brick built home, presently finished in render and set under a tiled, dual pitched roof with twin gables to the west elevation. It is a well-proportioned structure and is set amongst a series of lower ranged barn style structures. Its overall height and proportions are comfortably in scale with its immediate rural surroundings.

However, the proposed dwelling would be substantially larger. It would have a deeper plan form and resultant large roof span. Moreover, the house, in conjunction with the attached pool wing, would mark a noteworthy step change in scale and impact than that of the existing home.

This grand scale of the proposal would not sit comfortably in this rural context. The proposal therefore fails to comply with policies DC2 and HQ1 of the CBLP insofar as it would fail to enhance or reinforce the local distinctiveness of the area and create a sense of place. 2 APP/R0335/W/24/3346969 3 APP/P3040/W/24/3352111 4 APP/G5180/W/18/3206906

I accept that this existing house may have a less-than-ideal internal arrangement including steep stairs and low floor to ceiling heights. Moreover, it has been highlighted that the dwelling has certain structural defects. Even so, this is not sufficient justification for its replacement with a new building that would be harmful to the Green Belt.

The proposal has been submitted as [name] and [name] (SBCH), although it is unclear whether the Council is meeting its targets for the provision of SBCH. The Council has further indicated that a planning obligation would be required in order to secure the development as SBCH. No such planning obligation has been provided with the appeal.

[name] minded to allow the appeal, I would have sought further comments from the parties in relation to this including whether such an obligation would be necessary. However, as the appeal is to be dismissed, this is not required here. Even so, I remain mindful that the provision of a SBCH dwelling could be regarded as a benefit, nevertheless, as a replacement dwelling, this benefit is tempered and, in any case, would not overcome the harm to the Green Belt I have identified above.

The proposal would be materially larger than the dwelling it replaces. Moreover, even considering the fallback position, the proposed dwelling would remain materially larger in a visual dimension. The proposal would therefore be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and, in addition, would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. The proposal therefore conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above, the appeal should be dismissed.