Appeal 6006387

The appeal is dismissed.

In the interests of accuracy, I have used the description of development set out in the Council’s decision notice.

The main issues in the appeal are as follows: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework, relevant development plan policies, and the proposal’s effect on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area; and • Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal.

The appeal site lies within the Bristol and Bath Green Belt. The Framework states that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate development within the Green Belt unless the development falls within specified exceptions. Paragraph 154 includes amongst other exceptions:(c) the extension or alteration of a building provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. The list of exceptions does not include domestic outbuildings which in themselves would normally be inappropriate development. However Policy DM12 of the [name] and Policies Plan (Local Plan)(adopted 2016) quantifies matters further by providing that domestic outbuildings and garages within existing residential curtilages are not considered to be inappropriate development and should be of a scale and height subordinate to the original dwelling and not adversely affect the openness of the Green Belt.

The Council considers the storage building to be within the existing residential curtilage on the basis of its domestic function and its proximity close enough to the dwelling and refers to it as excessively large when compared to the original dwellinghouse. The original building has been previously extended but no details relating to the size of the original building and its extensions are before me. However the appellant does not dispute the overall assessment made by the Council that the proposal would constitute inappropriate development.

Nonetheless reference is made by the appellant to a number of features designed to achieve subservience, However, the proposal would result in a sizeable detached outbuilding which would stand out as a bulky and discordant feature which would fail to appear subservient to the dwelling as now extended. Therefore given this and that there is insufficient information before me to demonstrate that the proposal would not appear to be of a scale and height subordinate to the original dwelling the exception provided for within Policy DM12 cannot be applied with sufficient certainty.

Turning to openness, the essential characteristics of the Green Belt are their openness and their permanence. There is a spatial and visible aspect to openness. The proposal would replace the two existing containers on site. Whilst of the same length and approximate footprint as the containers as approved, the proposed workshop would be larger in height and there would therefore be an increase spatially in the level of built development in this location.

There is also a visual aspect to openness. The [site address] is sited within a large plot well screened from [address] and the storage building would be substantially set back from the public highway. The proposal would see the replacement of industrial style storage containers with a building of a more appropriate form and design to its rural setting. However, due to its height the proposal would be significantly visible and would have a greater impact on openness than the existing structures. As such the proposal would result in a limited loss of visual and spatial openness to the Green Belt.

To conclude, the proposal would constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt which is by definition harmful. In addition to the harm arising from the fact that the development would be inappropriate there would be a limited adverse effect on the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal would therefore also be contrary to Local Plan Policy DM12, details of which are given above.

The Council have no objection to the materials or render proposed to be used in the building. Rather their concern relates to the size and scale of the building which would in their view overpower the original building. No details are before me as to the size and design of the original building but it is difficult to discern any of the original form of the building in what is now an extended modern detached dwelling with substantial glazing. The site is well screened and given its location at its upper part, the storage building would be largely unseen when passing the site. However in those places from the public highway where there are views into part of the site, and notwithstanding the size of the dwelling as extended, the height and size of the storage building would appear as an overly large structure viewed as a stand alone building within a rural location. As such it would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the dwelling and the area.

Therefore on this issue the development would unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the area. As such it would conflict with Policies DM32 and DM38 of the Local Plan which amongst other matters require new outbuildings to respect the scale, proportions and design of the existing property, and Policy CS12 of the North Somerset Council Core Strategy 2017 which requires proposals demonstrate sensitivity to the existing local character.

The development would replace the two existing, unsightly storage containers on site, the siting of which is lawful. However whilst I accept there would be less visual clutter in this location the removal of the containers provides only a limited improvement to visual amenity and therefore only attracts moderate weight.

It is reasonable to assume an outbuilding would be required within a residential curtilage and that a level of storage ancillary to the residential use of the appeal site is necessary. On my site visit I noted that the two containers had a large storage tent affixed between them which, together with the containers, was being used for storage of domestic paraphernalia, furniture, and bikes amongst other items. However other than my observations on site, I have very limited information in terms of the extent, size and dimensions of the items to be stored in a storage building of such a size and height. As such, it has not been demonstrated that a less harmful alternative storage scheme could not be put forward which would meet policy constraints.

There are no adverse residential amenity effects and no concerns are raised in respect of ecology, the protection of trees and highway issues. However these factors are neutral and weigh neither in favour nor against the proposed scheme.

The proposed storage building would constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt which is harmful by definition and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The development would also cause limited spatial harm to openness. The Framework makes it clear that any harm to the Green Belt must be given substantial weight and that very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other circumstances.

I have had regard to the other considerations put forward. The considerations in this case would not clearly outweigh the harm from inappropriateness, the loss of openness and the other harm. Accordingly, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist and the proposal would therefore conflict with the development plan and the Framework relating to the Green Belt. I therefore dismiss the appeal.