Appeal 6005927

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed 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; • the effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • whether other considerations clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm as to amount to very special circumstances.

The appeal site is located within the Green Belt. The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of the Green Belt 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.

Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless specified exceptions apply. This includes, as contended by the appellant, paragraph 154 c), which relates to the 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 Courts1 have confirmed that paragraph 154 c) ‘is not to be interpreted as being confined to physically attached structures but that an extension for the purposes of that provision can include structures which are physically detached from the building of which they are an extension’.

[name] 7 (SP7) of The Plan for Stafford Borough 2011-2031 (PSB) identifies that development will be supported if, amongst other things, it is located within the Green Belt and is consistent with national policies for the control of development. As such there is consistency with the Framework. The PSB does not set out the circumstances in which an outbuilding ought to be treated as an extension to a building.

The proposed development seeks the erection of a detached garage to the southeast corner of the garden to [site address] , which forms part of a converted farmhouse. The main dwelling is positioned to the western edge of the appeal site with the remainder of the site forming its garden.

Broad agreement exists between the main parties that there would be an intervening distance of some 20m between the proposed garage and the main dwelling. I observed that views of the site are possible from [address] where a driveway leads to it as well as above a boundary hedgerow. This allows for a full appreciation of the depth of the garden in relation to the main dwelling and thereby the resulting gap between the proposed garage and the main dwelling.

Although the garage would be located where there are currently above ground tanks within an enclosure, the garage would be a sizeable structure with regard to its width, depth and height. By reason of its size, siting and detached appearance, I find that, as a matter of fact and degree, the proposed garage cannot be regarded as a normal domestic adjunct. Therefore, it does not constitute an extension to a building but represents a separate building.

For these reasons, the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt in terms of the Framework and PSB Policy SP7.

Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt and broadly has visual and spatial dimensions. The proposal would introduce additional built form to the garden, where there is currently only very low-level development and it would be visible from [address] across the driveway. Consequently, the proposal would have a greater impact, albeit limited, on openness than the existing situation, which weighs against the proposal.

Nestled against the backdrop of established vegetation, the proposal would not erode the significant landscaped buffer between the appeal site and the nearby residential development to the south and southeast. Moreover, due to the distance of the proposed garage to the main dwelling and its positioning in the corner of the garden, as well as the variety of buildings within the locality, it would not result in a discordant feature within, or dominate, the wider conversion complex. 1 [name] v SSLUHC, [name] & [name] [2022] EWHC 2145 (Admin)

In conclusion, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. I have found no conflict with PSB Policy N1, which seeks, amongst other things, a high design standard that takes into account the local character, context, density and landscape.

The appellant has not provided evidence of any other considerations that amount to very special circumstances to outweigh the harm identified.

I acknowledge the support from a neighbour and that a condition could be utilised to control external materials in the event the appeal was allowed. However, I attribute limited weight to these matters.

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 there would be harm to the Green Belt by reason of the proposed development’s inappropriateness and its effect on openness.

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 planning permission to be granted. The other considerations in this case, as detailed above, are not sufficient to comprise the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal. This would be contrary to the Framework and PSB Policy SP7.

The proposed development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.