Appeal 6006096

The appeal is dismissed.

I observed that the extension to the existing building and laying of hardstanding have been carried out and were not wholly consistent with the plans before me. There was an area of concrete hardstanding to the east of the building with a sizeable shed positioned upon it that is not shown on the submitted plans. For the avoidance of doubt, I have considered the appeal based on the plans before me.

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 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 in the Green Belt. The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of the Green Belt is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. The Framework states that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Policy P17 of the Solihull Local Plan (December 2013) (SLP) resists inappropriate development in the Green Belt, except in very special circumstances, which is consistent with the Framework.

Exceptions are identified in paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework where development would be regarded as not inappropriate. On the basis of the evidence before me and my observations, paragraphs 154 c), 154 h) ii and v are relevant.

The change of use of land to residential gardens does not fall under paragraph 154 h) v. It is not an open-ended category but rather “such as changes of use for outdoor sport and recreation, or for cemeteries and burial grounds”, gives the flavour and extent of the uses within it. Even if residential garden use did fall within this exception, it would still need to comply with the requirements to preserve the openness and not conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt.

Engineering operations, under paragraph 154 h) ii, could include works which change the physical nature of the land, including the creation of hardstanding, and contains the same requirement as 154 h) v to form an exception. In considering the concept of openness, the courts have found that it broadly has spatial and visual dimensions.

A gravel drive serves [site address] from the existing access of [site address] that wraps around the front and side of the dwelling. The proposal consists of an extension of this domestic drive where it enters the field and terminates at a sizeable gravelled rectangular area as well as an area of concrete surface fronting the appeal building, that I understand was historically approved as a stable block. This location behind the host dwelling, tucked alongside the boundary to [address] and in a well-screened corner of the field results in limited harm to the visual openness of the Green Belt.

Notwithstanding the use of gravel surfacing for the track, its creation, as well as a large turning area with associated vehicular movements, where it was previously undeveloped land would have an urbanising impact resulting in significant harm to the spatial openness of the Green Belt.

[name] saw that the track and turning area, as indicated on the submitted plans, were free of domestic paraphernalia, there is no means to prevent such paraphernalia being added to the site in the event the appeal is allowed. This would result in a further reduction to the spatial openness.

The purposes of the Green Belt, set out in paragraph 143 of the Framework, includes assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. The extension of the residential garden, including the track and turning area onto agricultural land, would lead to the encroachment into the countryside.

There would be a failure to preserve the openness of the Green Belt and a conflict with the purposes of including land within it. As such the proposal would not meet the relevant exceptions given in paragraphs 154 h) ii. and v of the Framework.

It is noted that the precise calculations of the extension carried out at the appeal building are in dispute, with the increase in floorspace of the original building ranging from some 25% to 50% depending on whether the element under the roof overhang should be included. Whilst such quantitative measures are useful to assess whether an extension amounts to a disproportionate addition, its scale, bulk, massing and height are also relevant to such an assessment.

In this respect, a noticeable portion of the extension sits under the original building’s roof overhang with the remaining section projecting forward at a height no higher than the eaves. Due to the positioning and height of the extension, the increase in scale, bulk and massing is modest. Consequently, the extension would not result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. Thereby this element of the proposal meets the exception set out in paragraph 154 c).

In conclusion, whilst I have found the extension to the original building would comply, the extension of the residential garden and laying of hardstanding would not accord with any of the exceptions contained in paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework and are therefore inappropriate development within the Green Belt in terms of the Framework and SLP Policy P17.

The appeal site forms part of a wider field that, along with other fields and areas of woodland, contributes to the prevailing open rural character of the locality, which surrounds nearby clusters of buildings and structures. As a result of the site’s location behind existing development as well as the dense vegetation around the boundary of the wider field and along [site address] , the proposal is very well screened from public vantage points.

Consequently, the development would not be conspicuous within the landscape setting and would have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. I have found no conflict with SLP Policy P15, which seeks to conserve and enhance local character and distinctiveness, and landscape quality.

Evidence before me indicates that prior to the conversion of former outbuildings, which later became [address], there was a driveway that led to the field in question. Although that driveway has been incorporated within the domestic curtilage of [address], based on the aerial photograph from 2015 contained on page 6 of the [name] of Case, there did not appear to be a hardstanding track within the field leading to the stable block.

Locating a stable block within a field close to an associated dwelling is reasonable. There are limited details of the consent for the stable block before me, including evidence that it included a hard surfaced track within the field. I have found no compelling argument that in this scenario it is both fair and reasonable that a change of use to a residential garden with associated track and large turning area should be provided to this building.

Moreover, there are no details of previous vehicular movements to the stable block across the field and how that compares to what is anticipated with the proposal, to enable an appraisal to be made on the impact of such vehicular movements on ground conditions in the absence of the hardstanding. Consequently, I afford these limited weight.

Although my attention has been drawn to appeal decisions, these are materially different to the proposal before me. In one of these1 there was no means of vehicular access to a dwelling, the development description did not include a change of use to residential garden, and the track was designed to use a grid force system to resemble grass. Another decision2 related to the conversion of a building to a dwelling that applied different exceptions contained within the Framework. As such, a comparison is of limited relevance in this instance, and I attribute limited weight to these decisions.

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 that there would be harm to the Green Belt by reason of the proposal’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 permission to be granted. The other considerations in this case, as detailed above, do not have sufficient cumulative weight to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm. As such, the very special circumstances necessary to justify this development do not exist. This would be contrary to the Framework and SLP Policy P17.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations put forward in support of the scheme do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed.