Appeal 6005918

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

Not all of the development is complete, and I will therefore refer to the proposal as a whole in the future tense. At the time of my site visit, the concrete base for the pod had been removed. The outbuildings are not referenced on the decision notice. This appears to be a typing error which is clarified in the officer report and referred to in the appellant’s statement. The error has not changed anything fundamental nor prejudiced the ability of any party to make their case in respect of the appeal.

The main issues are a) whether or not the appeal scheme would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the effect on its openness; b) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area with particular regard to trees and the Cotswold National Landscape (CNL); and c) If the proposal were inappropriate development, 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 it.

The fundamental aim of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. In this regard, the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) explains that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it is one of a specific number of exceptions. Policy SP1 of the Cotswold District Local Plan (2011-2031) defers to the position of the Framework on Green Belt matters. Paragraph 154 (c) of the Framework sets out that the extension or alteration of a building provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building would not be inappropriate development.

It is not explicitly stated what is meant by disproportionate. It is therefore a matter of judgement. As a domestic adjunct, an outbuilding can be treated as an extension for the purposes of paragraph 154 (c). Whether a detached structure would amount to an extension of the existing building is a matter of fact and degree. The proposed outbuildings are within the garden of the appeal property, are in relatively close proximity to and are to be used for purposes in connection with the dwelling. I therefore see no reason why I cannot consider the outbuildings as extensions to the building in this case, for green belt purposes.

The appeal dwelling is of a substantial size and sprawling scale and spreads across two floors. Each of the outbuildings proposed are relatively small scale in comparison. The largest being the pod building. This would be [address] metres in area which would also be comparatively small when compared to the footprint of the dwelling as a whole. Extensions in the Green Belt, under the Framework, must be considered on a cumulative basis against the original building. The appellant has provided figures that confirm that the total increase in land take for the proposals would be [address] metres which amounts to a 21% uplift in floor area when compared to the original building and a 14% uplift in floor space. They are all single storey and relatively compact. They would be closely related to the dwelling.

Given the expanse of the original building, the proposed outbuildings would not be disproportionate additions over and above its size and would as such not be inappropriate development. On that basis, there is no need for me to assess their effect on the Green Belt’s openness.

Paragraph 154 (g) of The Framework lists engineering operations as an exception provided that they preserve openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. Engineering operations tend to include works which change the physical nature of the land and in this case include the provision of hardstanding and soft landscaping. However, there would also be a section of lawn to the rear corner of the site where land levels would be raised including the erection of retaining walls.

Land levels at the site already rise from the road and elevate even further towards the rear boundary. The engineering operations would not increase the land any higher than the highest existing point and would mainly follow the natural levels of local topography. The proposed alterations are low scale and would not affect openness, either spatially or visually given their low profile and subsummation within the natural gradient of the area. There would still be a sense of openness from within and around the site and therefore openness would be preserved as a result of the engineering operations. The proposal would therefore not conflict with the requirements of the Framework and would be not inappropriate development.

As per the definition in the 1990 Act, a building can be any structure or erection, and any part of a building. For planning purposes therefore, the proposed fencing would be a building. For which the same rules apply for such in the Green Belt. There is no exception for this type of development in the Framework. As such, it would be inappropriate. As a substantial enclosing feature of some substance, height and length, the fencing would unavoidably reduce the spatial aspect of the Green Belt’s openness. The effect on the visual aspect would be limited by the semi built up context of the fencing, but this would not be insufficient to make it acceptable.

The harm that the fencing would cause to the Green Belt’s openness would be limited overall. It would nonetheless be worthy of substantial weight. As would its inappropriateness which is harmful by definition. In both cases, the fence would conflict with the aims of the relevant sections of the Framework and Policy SP1 as I have set them out above.

The appeal property is large and detached with a garden surrounding. The dwelling forms part of the [address] complex and is one of the most visible properties when entering the site. Dwellings within the complex are detached, very similar in their appearances and generally set back from the roadside with large green frontages. The appeal property has low boundary treatments. All of these factors combine to give a pleasant sense of spaciousness to the area. There is a row of protected mature trees alongside the side boundary of the property. They are prominent and form part of the attractive entrance to the site. There is a verdant feel to the appeal site due to the backdrop of the mature trees along with the open feel of the complex as a whole and its association with the fields beyond. This lends to a high-quality sense of naturalness which contributes positively to the character and appearance of the area.

Most of the development would be situated a fair distance away from the protected trees. However, there would be gravel and planting, soft landscaping and a pod building that would appear to be within their [name] (RPAs). It may be the case that the RPAs extend further into the adjoining green space, but the evidence provided is not conclusive in that respect. The gravel, planting and soft landscaping would be acceptable given that it would not involve any excavations. However, the pod building would be within the RPAs of four of the protected trees and would likely involve some excavation, even if minor to level the ground for the concrete base.

Without details as to how the development would be carried out, the full extent of the potential effects is unclear. It is regrettable that some excavations have already taken place and I am uncertain as to whether any harm to the trees has therefore occurred. Even if excavations were only minor to allow for the concrete base, I am concerned that it could occur at a point where, at the outer extremities of the RPAs, important fibrous and thus sensitive feeding roots may be just below the surface. Such would cause disturbance thereto.

Considering the value of the group of trees and their visual amenity importance for the site as a whole, I would be reluctant to impose a condition for an arboricultural method statement given that some works have commenced. Any such methodologies could and arguably should have been addressed pre-commencement and may have influenced where approved development would be going. Any harm, even to a small degree, could be avoided if the pod were to be sited elsewhere within the site given the large space available. The proposal therefore has the potential to cause unacceptable harm to the protected trees.

Most of the aspects of the proposal would be relatively small scale or lightweight. The proportions and scale of the majority of the components are consistent with the character and appearance of the site and would not be easily visible from outside of the appeal property. The exceptions to this would be the proposed steps, fencing, gravel and planting to the front of the site and the proposed pod.

The pod would be situated between the appeal building and the neighbouring green space. It would be a standalone feature constructed in hardwood with an aluminium canopy. The rear of the pod would be black. Given the consistency in material palette between the [address] dwellings and the prominence that the pod would have given its location close to the access to the complex, the pod would negatively draw the eye as a dark block.

The proposed works to the front would have a low profile involving minimal engineering operations and would follow the existing land levels of the site. The steps and gravel would utilise colours that would complement the materials of the dwelling. The proposals to the front would also include some greenery. I agree that the works may give a more built-up appearance than the green frontages seen within the site, but this would not be harmful for the reasons set out above. Although it would be higher than the other boundary treatments at the site, the proposed fencing would not be a solid structure and allow views into the site and thus retain a sense of spaciousness. These aspects would therefore reflect the character and appearance of the area and the sense of naturalness across the appeal site would be preserved.

Whilst the pod would be harmful to the character and appearance of the area in the manner I have explained, this would not extend to the special qualities of the CNL given it’s otherwise, and in the wider landscape sense alone, semi built-up context. I do not agree therefore that the proposed development would detrimentally affect the duty to further the purposes of preserving and enhancing the special qualities of the CNL. Nevertheless, given the harm that I have found above with regard to the proposed pod in local character and appearance terms, the proposal would conflict with Policies EN2 and EN7 of the Cotswold District Local Plan 2018 which are concerned with the quality and contextual appropriateness of design of the built environment amongst other things.

The appeal process is impartial, and any advice taken from the Council would not influence my recommendation. The same can be said for any concerns about the way in which the planning application was handled at the application stage.

The proposals may improve the usability of the garden for the occupiers however, a personal benefit such as this would not outweigh the harm that I have identified above. Similarly, the use of high-quality materials would be a lack of harm and would also not therefore be capable of outweighing the harm identified.

There may be some other examples of taller fencing within the Ullenwood complex but I have not been provided with their planning history. Nevertheless, such fencing would not justify the development which as set out above would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The appeal scheme would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; it would also reduce its openness. These would be worthy of substantial weight. There would be harm to the character and appearance of the area. The lack of harm I have found on some matters would be neutral. The other considerations would, collectively speaking, attract limited weight. Such that they would be incapable of clearly outweighing the harms. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposals do not exist.

As a result of the above, the appeal scheme would conflict with the development plan. Material considerations do not indicate a decision other than in accordance therewith. I therefore recommend the appeal is dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.