Appeal 6006439

The appeal is dismissed.

I observed that the residential use surrounding the appeal property has already been extended and is bounded by a post and rail fence and surfaced predominantly in gravel, and the driveway access has been finished in tarmac. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis that the development has already taken place.

The main issues are: • whether the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies, including the effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area; and • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the development.

The appeal property is a former agricultural building in the Green Belt which has been converted to a residential dwelling following prior approval given by the Council.1 The access track to the dwelling from [address] is outside the Green Belt for most of its length, but it is within the open countryside.

Policy EN4 of the [name] and Land Allocations Development Plan Document (2025) (SPLA) and Policy DM50 of the Development Management Development Plan Document (2025) (DM) state that development proposals within the Green Belt will be assessed against national planning policy.

Paragraph 153 of the Framework requires substantial weight to be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness, stating that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of the exceptions in paragraph 154 and 155 of the Framework apply.

Paragraph 154(h) of the Framework states that ‘other forms of development’ including ‘v. material changes in the use of land (such as changes of use for outdoor sport and recreation, or for cemeteries and burial grounds)’ are not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

In so far as it related to a material change in the use of land, the [name] found the development to fall within the scope of paragraph 154(h)(v). The Council’s evidence however refers to an appeal decision2 in respect of the change of use of an agricultural field to use as an extension to a private residential garden. That decision relies on the judgment in RB of Kingston upon Thames v SSLUHC [2023] EWHC 2055 (Admin) which confirmed that residential uses do not fall within this exception. The judgment further held that paragraph 154(h)(v) is not an open-ended category, but rather, because of the words “such as,” the uses that will be within it should take their flavour or extent from the examples given.

Even if a residential use did fall within this exception, it would need to meet the secondary requirement in respect of the preservation of the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land within it. The Framework identifies that a fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to keep land permanently open, and its essential characteristics are openness and permanence. The Planning Practice Guidance3 explains that assessing the impact of a proposal on the openness of the Green Belt requires a judgement based on the circumstances of the case. Openness can have both spatial and visual aspects, and the degree of activity likely to be generated may also need to be taken into account.

The pre-existing site plan4 shows a modest external garden area, with an area for parking and turning drawn relatively tight to the dwelling, accessed from a partially hard surfaced agricultural track. I observed that the extended garden has been fenced off with a timber post and rail fence, and the area inside has been predominantly laid to gravel, with an area of patio and a shed located close to the western boundary. This has extended domestic activity, hardstanding, and parking onto part of an agricultural field which did not historically exist. It has therefore had a detrimental effect on the spatial aspect of the openness of the Green Belt. 1 LPA ref. 19/00872/PAA & 21/00465/VCN 2 APP/G5180/C/23/3334599 & APP/G5180/C/23/334600 3 [name]: 013 [name]: 64-013-20250225 4 Proposed Site Plan – 2106-16 [name]

Buildings incidental to the enjoyment of a dwelling are not permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) where permission to use the dwelling has been granted only by virtue of Class Q of Part 3 of the same schedule. Further buildings or enclosures cannot therefore be built. However, the development results in increased potential for domestic paraphernalia to be sited, such as planters, garden furniture, children’s play equipment etc. It would not be reasonable to restrict domestic paraphernalia and, given the specific way they are used and sited, a planning condition would be neither practical nor realistic to enforce. Consequently, the development results in further spatial loss of openness resulting in domestic structures where there was previously none.

The appeal property is seen from the rear of [address] (No 25). However, beyond this, the siting at the end of [address] and at a lower ground level means that the enlarged residential garden cannot be seen from the end of the cul-de-sac. In distant public views from places along [address] (A6), the extent of the garden is just discernible and there would therefore be a small but perceptible loss of visual openness.

Consequently, although it would be localised, the development results in minor harm to the spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt and conflicts with the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. A condition controlling future boundary treatments would not sufficiently mitigate or address this harm.

Moreover, the enlarged residential garden projects into the open countryside albeit to a modest degree. The development therefore conflicts with the Green Belt purpose at paragraph 143(c) of the Framework which is to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the development results in localised, minor harm to the spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt and would conflict with one of the purposes of including land within it. Accordingly, even if relevant in respect of the residential use of the land, the development does not meet the exception outlined in paragraph 154(h)(v) of the Framework. No other exceptions have been advanced by the appellant. Therefore, the development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

The appeal property forms part of an open, grassed field which makes a positive contribution to the semi-rural and verdant character and appearance of land between the residential development on the outskirts of Carnforth and the railway.

The simple post and rail timber fence around the garden area is typical of a rural or agricultural environment and would have less harm than an urban garden boundary treatment such as a high fence or wall. However, whilst the development does not include new buildings, it introduces domestic activity, significant areas of hardstanding and parking into an area that was previously agricultural, which differs fundamentally in character.

Moreover, it has introduced a significant length of tarmac which is visible and prominent from the garden of No 25 and semi-public views from the top of the access track. Together, these encroach into the countryside and detract from the semi-rurality and verdancy that I have identified as being characteristic of the area.

I therefore conclude that the development results in modest harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It conflicts with DM policies DM29 and DM46 which require new development to contribute positively to the character of the area through good design, having regard to local distinctiveness, appropriate siting, layout and materials, and is in keeping with landscape character. It would further conflict with SPLA Policy EN3 in so far as it requires proposals within the open countryside to have due regard to all relevant Local Plan policies.

The pre-existing site plan shows an area for parking and turning close to the dwelling, and I observed sufficient space for two cars to park and manoeuvre, such that the access track could be accessed in a forward gear.

Interested parties suggest that farm access is available from a gate at the top of the track, but on my site visit this land appeared fenced off from the grazing sheep. Irrespective of this, I recognise that farm access to/from the gate at the bottom of the track is needed to ensure, amongst other things, the welfare of livestock on adjoining land. A farm pick-up and trailer were parked on my site visit, and it was evident that accessing the field would be difficult from the pre-existing parking and turning areas, particularly if cars associated with the dwelling were present. [name] give the requirements of the farmer significant weight, on the evidence before me, they do not justify the size of the extended garden area. Nor am I persuaded that tarmac along the full length of the track is needed to ensure debris from the field is not carried onto the main roadway.

I also recognise that the pre-existing garden area at the appeal property would have been relatively small, but the appellant would have been aware of paragraph Q3(1) of Schedule 2, Part 3 of the GPDO which defines “curtilage” for the purposes of a Class Q conversion. Nevertheless, it is understandable why the appellant would want to extend the usable space, particularly given the importance of a private garden for health and well-being. However, the extended garden appears disproportionately large for the modest size of the dwelling.

The appeal development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt. In addition, there would be modest harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Paragraph 153 of the Framework requires that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 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.

In this case, the substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm, and any other harm, would not clearly be outweighed by the other considerations above. Therefore, the very special circumstances required to justify a grant of planning permission do not exist and the development conflicts with the Framework, SPLA Policy EN4 and DM Policy DM50.

For the above reasons, the development conflicts with the development plan and material considerations, including the Framework, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.