Appeal 6006704

The appeal is dismissed.

The site is located within the Green Belt. Planning permission1 has been granted to demolish the existing site dwelling and construct a new dwelling. Condition 2 requires that development to be carried out in accordance with a series of approved plans.

The appellant applied to the Council2 to carry out the development without complying with condition 2 – seeking to add a detached garage building – but the Council refused it. In summary, the Council refused the application because it considered that the development would constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt, would harm the Green Belt, and the very special 1 Planning permission reference 24/01551/FUL 2 Planning application reference 25/04072/VARYCO circumstances necessary to justify the proposal did not exist. The appellant has subsequently lodged this appeal.

Given this context, the main issues are: • Whether the proposal to vary condition 2 would result in a development which would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • The effect that the proposal to vary condition 2 would have on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; 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 proposal.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless an exception applies. The Framework identifies these exceptions at paragraph 154 onwards.

One of these exceptions is identified at paragraph 154 c): 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 Framework’s glossary defines what is meant by ‘the original building’: a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was built originally.

The proposal to vary condition 2 links to the existing planning permission to demolish the existing site dwelling and construct a new dwelling. It is proposed to add to this new dwelling a detached garage building.

Given their purpose to support the use of a dwelling and, oftentimes, close relationship with them, detached garages can quite rightly be treated as extensions. However, in this case, the new dwelling which this garage would relate to has not been constructed. Since the building it would be extending has not been built, the proposed garage building cannot constitute an extension to the original building. Therefore, the proposal does not meet the paragraph 154 c) exception.

Another exception to development in the Green Belt being inappropriate is at paragraph 154 d): the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces.

Given the wording of paragraph 154 d), the exercise of determining whether a replacement building would be materially larger than the one it would replace is principally one which requires reference to, and assessment of, sheer size. It is not determined by comparative effects on openness. The effect of the proposal on openness is another exercise which I conduct elsewhere in my decision.

Essentially a triple garage with some roof accommodation and dormers, the proposed garage building would be of considerable size, and it would be added to the proposed new dwelling which itself would be a larger dwelling than that it would replace.

The Council assert that the new dwelling together with the proposed associated garage building would provide a total development of 1,897m3 and amount to a 102% volumetric increase in comparison to the existing dwelling and the various outbuildings permitted for demolition. This represents a very considerable increase in volume and size.

The appellant has not provided me with their own alternative total volumetric figures or percentages. What is asserted is that the Council’s comparative calculations have failed to take into account that another outbuilding would now be demolished. However, I note that the outbuilding in question is delineated on the approved site plan3 by a dotted red line, just like the existing dwelling and other outbuildings including a former garage. This indicates that the demolition of the outbuilding in question has likely already been accounted for within the Council’s calculations.

Even if this has not been the case, and a greater volume would now be demolished, the outbuilding is a relatively modest structure. As such, the proposal would still result in a significant overall increase in the site’s built volume.

Therefore, the proposal to vary condition 2 and allow for the inclusion of the proposed garage building serving the new dwelling, would result in the replacement of a building with one that would be materially larger.

Consequently, the proposal does not meet the exception set at paragraph 154 d) of the Framework and, overall, the proposal to vary condition 2 would result in a development which would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This means that the proposal would, on these grounds alone, harm the Green Belt, a matter of substantial weight.

In visual terms, a comparison between the totality of development now proposed and the existing dwelling and its assortment of outbuildings indicates that there would be a mix of visual effects. Some would be beneficial to openness and others adverse.

On the beneficial side, the site’s development would be more cohesively arranged with the site’s distributed outbuildings replaced. The new dwelling would be positioned towards the southern end of the site and thereby farther from [site address] and the adjacent [address] than the existing dwelling. As a result, on completion of the development, in views from [site address] and [address] the site’s dwelling would be less impactful and imposing.

That said, the proposed garage building would be closer to these highways than the new dwelling and, by reason of its scale and alignment with the access and road junction, it would be prominent. As a result, the benefits of the existing planning permission in terms of reduced visual impact from the adjacent highways would be diminished.

In terms of the adverse effects, the new dwelling would be closer to a public footpath to the south. Given its proximity and considerable size, scale and mass, inclusive of its feature south elevation gable projections, it would be more visible 3 Proposed site plan 90 002 P01 and prominent from this public vantage point than the existing dwelling and its associated development.

Aside from these visual effects, the proposal would result in the site clearly accommodating more built development with both the new house and garage being buildings of considerable scale. The site would host a significantly increased total volume of development.

This sheer quantum of development is an important factor and, overall, considered together with mixed outcomes of the proposal’s visual effects I conclude that the openness of the Green Belt would be reduced. It would be reduced to a limited extent, nevertheless, a reduction would arise, and this would be harmful to the Green Belt.

The new dwelling and proposed garage would be confined to a plot of land which has already been providing residential accommodation and ancillary development. The site’s development would also be cohesively arranged. Therefore, notwithstanding the quantum of development now proposed and my findings in relation to openness, the development would not result in an erosion of the countryside to an extent that would undermine the Green Belt’s purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Accordingly, no conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt would arise.

The proposal would result in enlarged and improved accommodation suitable for the site’s occupants. The proposal would provide more secure storage for the site occupiers, although I have limited evidence that crime is a particular problem in the area or that the site is vulnerable to it. Proposed planting would bring with it some landscaping mitigation and enhancement, and biodiversity betterments. Whilst these are benefits, altogether, they are modest.

The architecture and detailed design facets of the proposed development would be appropriate and its effects on the character and appearance of the area would, therefore, be acceptable. It would also result in no adverse effects on the likes of the living conditions of local residents or highway safety. However, the effects of the development in relation to these matters constitute an absence of harm only and are of neutral consequence.

The appellant has drawn my attention to several appeal decisions relating to development in the Green Belt. However, appeal decisions rely heavily on case-specific evidence and circumstances. [name] have the appeal decisions before me, I do not have all of the other evidence which will have been before the inspectors in those cases. This means that it is difficult to assess the extent to which they are comparable to the case before me. An accurate comparison of effects on the openness of the Green Belt between the various schemes would require a much more thorough understanding of the plans and the site contexts than I have the benefit of. There are some other factors which distinguish the cited cases from the one I am determining as well, for instance, different development plans applied. I have therefore reached my conclusions based on the evidence before me and the particular site-specific circumstances of this appeal. Given these factors, the cited appeal decisions do not weigh in the appeal proposal’s favour to any meaningful extent.

In my first main issue, I have concluded that varying condition 2 would result in a development which would amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. On these grounds alone, the Green Belt would be harmed, and this is a matter of substantial weight. [name] have set out in my second main issue, the proposal would also reduce the Green Belt's openness. This gives rise to additional Green Belt harm.

The Framework makes it clear that inappropriate development should only be approved where very special circumstances exist. Policy STP 8 of the Northumberland Local Plan 2016 – 2036 (the LP) sets out the same. It is important to note that these very special circumstances will not exist unless the totality of the harm to the Green Belt (and any other harm should there be any) is clearly outweighed by the other considerations. This means that it is insufficient for the other considerations to merely outweigh the harm - they must do so decisively.

The other considerations which apply in this case are not of sufficient weight to clearly outweigh the harm which would be wrought upon the Green Belt. As a result, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal do not exist. Consequently, the proposal to vary condition 2 conflicts with LP Policy STP 8 and the Framework’s Green Belt policy.

The proposal to vary condition 2 of the existing planning permission conflicts with the development plan as a whole. There are no material considerations of sufficient weight to indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.