Appeal 6005423

The appeal is dismissed.

I have taken the address of the appeal site from the appeal form rather than the application form as this more clearly describes the location of the site.

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 any relevant effects on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposed dwelling on neighbouring trees; • whether the proposal would provide adequate living conditions for future occupants, with particular reference to indoor and outdoor environments; • whether the proposal would make suitable provision for the disposal of foul water; and, • whether the 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 situated in the Green Belt. The Framework indicates at paragraph 154 that, other than in connection with a small number of exceptions, the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt.

The proposed bungalow would not fall within any of the exceptions set out in the Framework. In particular, the appeal site does not comprise an established developed site and, together with the wider holding and adjacent land, forms part of a broader area of open land within the Green Belt. It would not therefore represent limited development within an established developed site. As it does not fall within any of the exceptions set out in the Framework, it is by definition inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

In addition to this definitional harm, I now turn to consider the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt. Openness is a key characteristic of the Green Belt and can have both spatial and visual aspects. The appeal site forms part of a wider equestrian holding within a broader area of open land separating nearby residential development. Although there are storage containers and a caravan within the appeal site, and equestrian buildings on the wider holding, the latter are outside the appeal site and the existing built form is limited and largely incidental. The site also includes part of the access track serving the wider holding and occupies a relatively elevated position within the surrounding land. Consequently, and having regard to its wider context, the site presently exhibits a relatively open character.

In spatial terms, the proposed dwelling would increase the amount of built form on the site and extend development into an area that is not currently occupied by permanent buildings. While the wider holding includes established equestrian buildings, these are located outside the appeal site and sit further into the landscape. The proposal would therefore introduce a new element of built development in a more forward position, adding to the physical presence of development within this part of the Green Belt.

In visual terms, the proposed dwelling would be of modest scale and existing vegetation along the site boundaries would provide some degree of screening. Nevertheless, the siting of the building, together with the elevated position of the site and the relative openness of the surrounding land, would result in it appearing more prominent within the site and its surroundings than the existing built form. As such, it would be readily perceived as encroaching into this open area.

The Framework and case law make clear that openness has both spatial and visual dimensions. For the reasons set out above, the proposal would fail in both respects, introducing additional built form and a more prominent structure into this part of the Green Belt. Consequently, the proposal would run counter to the essential characteristic of openness that Green Belt policy seeks to protect.

To conclude, the proposal would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and relevant development plan policies, including any relevant effects on the openness of the Green Belt. It follows that the proposal conflicts with Policy LP62 of the Wakefield District Local Plan (January 2024) (LP), which is broadly consistent with the Framework and requires, among other things, development to meet the criteria set out in national planning policy.

Mature trees within the garden of [address] to the shared boundary with the appeal site and form a group that makes a positive contribution to the verdant character of the surrounding area. The proposed dwelling would be located very close to the site boundary. While the appellant contends that the proposal would have minimal impact on these trees and that appropriate construction methods could be employed to protect them, no arboricultural assessment, impact appraisal or method statement has been provided.

In the absence of such information, there is insufficient evidence for me to conclude that the development could be accommodated without harm to those trees, or that appropriate protection could be secured during construction. As such, the proposal would fail to meet the requirements of LP54 of the LP, which requires the submission of an appropriate tree survey where trees may be affected by development.

The plans before me indicate the proposed bedrooms would fall below the minimum space standards set out in Policy LP3 of the LP and the Wakefield District Residential Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (January 2018). In addition, the layout, proportions and relationship of principal rooms to the site boundaries would result in a constrained and limited quality of accommodation, with the outlook from some habitable rooms notably restricted by their close proximity to boundaries and adjacent vegetation.

Even if the dwelling has been designed in a form that may sympathise with its Green Belt location, this does not justify inadequate internal space. Furthermore, although the appellant considers the accommodation to be sufficient for their needs, planning permission runs with the land and the living conditions of future occupants must be assessed on an objective basis.

Similarly, although the overall quantum of external space may appear adequate, the proposed principal garden area would be narrow, constrained in its dimensions and separated from the dwelling by the access track serving the stables, which would materially limit its usability as private residential space. Moreover, the area identified as garden lies outside the red line boundary, such that there is no certainty it would form part of the residential curtilage. For similar reasons, the suggestion that the wider equestrian land could serve as outdoor space does not overcome this concern, as it would not provide the level of private, convenient and domestic amenity reasonably expected for a dwelling.

Taken together, the proposal would fail to provide adequate living conditions for future occupants, in respect of both indoor and outdoor environments. It would therefore conflict with Policy LP56 of the LP, which requires, among other things, development to make a positive contribution to the amenity of its users through high quality design and layout.

The appellant indicates that foul water would be disposed of via an existing septic tank which currently serves a static caravan on the wider holding. However, the evidence before me indicates that the caravan was originally approved for non-residential purposes, and its current use and status are unclear. In these circumstances, the existing arrangement does not provide a reliable basis for assessing foul drainage provision for a permanent dwelling.

In any event, no substantive details have been provided regarding the capacity, specification or suitability of the septic tank to serve the proposed development. Hence, there is insufficient evidence before me to conclude that adequate foul drainage infrastructure would be available or that its operation would not give rise to unacceptable effects on water quality. The proposal would therefore conflict with LP30 of the LP, which requires, among other things, that development is supported by appropriate drainage infrastructure and does not result in an unacceptable impact on water quality.

The appellant has referred to a previous planning permission for a dwelling on the site and to extracts from the planning statement supporting that permission, suggesting that the same policy context applies in this case. However, that permission has lapsed and, in any event, would have involved the replacement of the stable building rather than its retention alongside a new dwelling. It therefore relates to a materially different form of development and does not carry weight in the determination of this appeal. In any event, the appeal before me must be determined on its own merits, having regard to the development proposed and the evidence before me.

The appellant states that the proposal would be exempt from the statutory biodiversity net gain requirements on the basis that it would comprise self-build development. However, no planning obligation has been provided to secure the development as self-build. Furthermore, I have limited evidence before me to demonstrate that the respective condition suggested by the Council would meet the relevant tests as set out in the Framework. On this basis, I am not persuaded that the claimed exemption would apply. Nevertheless, having regard to my findings on Green Belt, it is not necessary for me to reach a definitive conclusion on this matter.

I have also had regard to the appellant’s personal circumstances, including their use of the site for equestrian purposes, their intentions for its ongoing use, and the stated need to provide care for horses on a 24-hour basis. However, there is no substantive evidence before me to demonstrate that such care could not be provided adequately without a permanent residential presence on the site, or that the proposed dwelling is necessary for that purpose. These are therefore matters of a private nature and do not carry sufficient weight to outweigh the identified harm.

The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which would harm its openness and conflict with the purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. As such, the Framework requires that I give this harm substantial negative weight. In addition, I have found that the scheme would fail to provide acceptable living conditions for future occupants, would not demonstrate that adequate foul drainage infrastructure would be available, and would not demonstrate that its effect on trees would be acceptable. These matters attract further negative weight.

For the reasons set out above, the benefits and material considerations in support of the proposal, taken together, carry limited weight and do not clearly outweigh the harm the scheme would cause. Consequently, there are not the very special circumstances necessary to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole, and material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.