Appeal 6006013

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and development plan policy; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal site and surrounding area; and • if the development would be inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify it.

The appeal site lies within the Green Belt. The Framework states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate development unless one of the listed exceptions applies.

The proposal would involve the demolition of an existing bungalow, detached garage and outbuilding and their replacement with a substantially larger detached dwelling and detached double garage. The appellant contends that the proposal represents an acceptable replacement dwelling and that the reduction in ground levels, lowered roof pitch and proposed landscaping would minimise any effect on openness.

Paragraph 154(d) of the Framework provides an exception for the replacement of a building provided that the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. Policy M12 of the Dartford Local Plan to 2037 (DLP) broadly aligns with this requirement.

The existing dwelling is a modest single-storey bungalow occupying an elevated position above [site address] . Whilst visible from the public highway, it is characterised by a relatively low profile and limited bulk. The detached garage is similarly modest in scale. By contrast, the proposed dwelling would be a two-storey structure with a substantially greater footprint, volume and overall massing. The proposed garage would also be significantly larger than the existing building it would replace.

Although there is some disagreement between the parties regarding the precise dimensions of the proposal, the evidence before me indicates that the replacement dwelling and garage would together be several times larger than the existing buildings. The proposal would therefore materially exceed the scale of the development currently occupying the site.

The appeal site occupies a prominent and elevated position above the road. During my site visit I observed that the land rises sharply from [site address] , with the existing bungalow sitting on a plateau overlooking the highway. Whilst the appellant proposes some regrading of land levels and a reduction in roof pitch compared with earlier iterations of the scheme, the replacement buildings would nevertheless appear substantially larger than those currently occupying the site.

I have considered the appellant's argument that the proposed dwelling and garage would occupy less than 20% of the overall site area. However, neither Paragraph 154(d) of the Framework nor Policy M12 assess replacement dwellings by reference to the percentage of site coverage. Rather, the relevant question is whether the replacement buildings would be materially larger than those they replace, having regard to their footprint, but also their height, bulk, massing and overall scale. In this case, notwithstanding that a substantial proportion of the site would remain undeveloped, the proposed dwelling and garage would be significantly larger than the existing buildings.

Consequently, the proposal would not fall within the exception contained in paragraph 154(d) of the Framework, nor would it comply with Policy M12 insofar as it relates to replacement buildings.

The site comprises previously developed land. However, paragraph 154(g) only applies where redevelopment would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Openness is identified in the Framework as one of the Green Belt’s essential characteristics. In this regard, openness has both spatial and visual dimensions.

The proposal would introduce a substantial increase in built volume on the site. The enlarged dwelling and garage would display a significantly greater physical presence than the existing buildings. As a consequence, there would be a material reduction in the spatial openness of the site.

In visual terms, the elevated siting of the appeal property is particularly important. The site is readily visible from [site address] and from surrounding countryside. Whilst landscaping is proposed, much of the site currently remains open and exposed, particularly when viewed from the public highway. The increased height, bulk and massing of the proposed buildings would therefore be considerably more noticeable than the existing bungalow and garage.

The proposal would result in considerable additional built form on an elevated countryside site and would consequently cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt in both spatial and visual terms, and conflict with the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy, which is to keep land permanently open. It would thus not satisfy the requirements of paragraph 154(g) of the Framework.

The proposal would therefore represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt. By definition, such development is harmful to the Green Belt and substantial weight must be given to that harm. Furthermore, by reason of the increased scale and intensity of built development on this elevated countryside site, the proposal would conflict with the Green Belt purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

Accordingly, the proposal conflicts with Policy M12 of the DLP which seeks to ensure development in the Green Belt preserves openness and that a proposed replacement building would not be materially larger than the existing building it would replace, taking into account bulk, height, massing and scale.

The Council’s decision notice refers to Policies M1 and M10 of the DLP which, together, seek to ensure development is well-designed. However, these policies are not directly relevant to this main issue.

The appeal site lies within an open countryside location on the edge of the small settlement of Betsham. The surrounding area is characterised by agricultural land, pasture and sporadic development. The appeal property occupies a prominent hillside position above [site address] and forms a noticeable feature within the local landscape.

The existing bungalow is modest in scale and domestic in appearance. Whilst clearly visible, its low height and simple form limit its visual influence on the surrounding countryside and streetscene. The proposed replacement dwelling would be considerably larger. It would introduce a more substantial two-storey form on a site which is already visually prominent. The detached garage would likewise be significantly larger than the building it would replace.

I have considered the appellant's contention that the proposed Arts and Crafts design would be appropriate and that the reduction in roof pitch, together with additional planting, would minimise visual impacts. [name] do not regard the architectural design itself as objectionable, the principal concern arises from the increased scale, height and massing of the proposed buildings rather than their detailed appearance.

The proposal would introduce a more dominant built presence on the site. Given the exposed nature of the site and its elevated relationship with [site address] , the enlarged dwelling would appear unduly prominent within the rural landscape and streetscene. The proposed landscaping would take time to establish and, in any event, would not overcome the visual effects arising from the substantial increase in built form.

Consequently, the proposal would fail to preserve the rural character of the site and surrounding countryside and would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would therefore conflict with Policies M1 and M10 of the DLP insofar as they seek to ensure development is well-designed and responds to surrounding context, and that new dwellings are not visually obtrusive.

The Framework highlights that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances, with substantial weight given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very Special Circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The appellant has drawn attention to the condition of the existing dwelling and explains that it is of non-standard construction. The evidence indicates that the property may present challenges in terms of mortgageability and long-term occupation. I recognise that the replacement of the dwelling would provide modern accommodation and improved living conditions.

I also acknowledge that the proposal would provide a self-build dwelling. The provision of a new dwelling weighs in favour of the proposal. However, the contribution of one single dwelling would be modest in scale and would make only a very small contribution to the overall housing delivery in the borough. Consequently, this benefit attracts limited weight.

The proposal would incorporate renewable energy measures and provide electric vehicle charging facilities. These matters weigh in favour of the proposal. However, modern sustainability measures are not uncommon features of contemporary development and attract only limited weight in this case.

The appellant also argues that the proposal would represent an efficient use of previously developed land. However, I have found that the proposal would materially increase the amount built form and cause harm to Green Belt openness. Consequently, this consideration attracts limited weight.

The appellant refers to the Council's pre-application advice and subsequent correspondence with the case officer and contends that these gave rise to an expectation that planning permission would be granted. I have had regard to the submitted correspondence. However, the pre-application response expressly identified significant concerns regarding Green Belt policy. The subsequent email exchanges indicate discussions regarding potential amendments to the proposal, but they do not amount to an indication that planning permission would necessarily be forthcoming. In particular, it was stated that the size and design of the dwelling remained a concern. In any event, my findings in this case rest upon the proposal before me and the evidence submitted in support of the appeal.

The proposal would cause harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness, as well as harm to openness, and substantial weight must be given cumulatively to this harm. I have also found that the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area. The other considerations advanced in this case do not clearly outweigh the substantial harm that I have identified.

Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. The proposal 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.