Appeal 6006930

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for detached outbuilding to replace two existing outbuildings at [site address] , Buckinghamshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/5903/FA, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings [name] 01 [name] - Location Plan and Site Plan; and [name] 03 [name] - [name] and Elevations.

The external materials of the outbuilding hereby permitted shall match those as indicated on the planning application form.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issues are: i) whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and development plan policies including the effect on the openness of the Green Belt; ii) the effect of the proposed development on the Chilterns National Landscape; and iii) if the proposed development would be inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to very special circumstances necessary to justify it.

The Chiltern District Council Local Plan (LP) (1997) predates the publication of the Framework and [name] GB2 and GB15 are not entirely consistent with the Framework’s approach to development in the Green Belt. Policy GB2 states that most development in the Green Belt is inappropriate and lists several exceptions including the limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings (criterion c.). Also, Policy GB15 states that the construction or extension of ancillary non-habitable buildings will be permitted provided they are both small and subordinate in scale to the original dwelling. Whereas the Framework at paragraph 154 c) allows for extensions to any building, not only dwellings, provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Whilst this requires consideration of the scale of the alteration relative to the original building, there is no requirement for such extensions to be small in their own right. Accordingly, I attach limited weight to these development plan policies.

The proposed development would not comply with any of the exceptions to inappropriate development as set out in LP Policy GB2. With respect to LP Policy GB15, the footprint of the proposed building would be relatively long. As such, it could not be said to be small and therefore would conflict with that policy requirement. Nonetheless, the view of the proposal from the rear elevation of the house would be of its south-east elevation comprising a narrow, single storey building with a pitched roof. Whilst the proposal would be longer than the existing buildings, the extent to which this would be appreciable would be limited as its long elevation would be well contained by existing landscaping.

Also, the elevation facing out to open countryside would be broken up by full height, glazed doors. Moreover, the proposal would appear subordinate to the existing, two storey, end of terrace house. Although there are other outbuildings at the appeal site, including a car port, the location of the proposal on the site of two existing outbuildings would ensure that it would not appear to result in a proliferation of such buildings. Therefore, it would not be wholly in conflict with Policy GB15. In any event, the conflict with these policies attracts limited weight for the reasons given.

With respect to the exceptions to inappropriate development in the Framework, the appellants submit that the proposed development should be assessed against paragraph 154 g). This allows for the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use, which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

I am satisfied that for the purposes of this appeal, the appeal site is previously developed land, as the proposed outbuilding would result in redevelopment of land replacing two equestrian buildings and associated hardstanding. Furthermore, these buildings are within garden land in a non-built-up area and are therefore not excluded from the general definition of previously developed land as given in the Framework.

Openness is one of the key characteristics of the Green Belt which has both a visual and spatial aspect. The proposal would replace two outbuildings with one single building, therefore the gap between the two buildings would be replaced with built form. The proposed outbuilding would also cover a larger footprint and would be slightly taller than the existing outbuildings. This would amount to a spatial reduction in Green Belt openness. Furthermore, there would also be a visual effect on openness as the increased scale of the proposed outbuilding would be discernible to a limited extent from the appeal site and open countryside adjoining the appeal site. However, given the relative scale of the proposal compared to the existing buildings, the reduction in openness would be modest. Furthermore, I note that the Council finds that the reduction in openness would be limited and localised.

Moreover, the exception in paragraph 154 g) is concerned with there being substantial harm to the Green Belt’s openness, which is a high test. While the proposed outbuilding is said to be materially larger than the buildings it would replace, the effects on openness as identified above would be not be substantial.

Accordingly, the proposed development would satisfy the exception in paragraph 154 g) of the Framework and therefore would not comprise inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The Council considered the proposal against Framework exceptions under paragraph 154 c) and 154 d). However, as I have found that the proposal would meet the exception under paragraph 154 g), there is no need to consider whether other exceptions also apply.

Given that I have found that the proposed development is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, the consideration of whether very special circumstances exist is not required. Therefore, it is not necessary for me to consider the third main issue.

The appeal site is located within the Chilterns National Landscape (NL). I am mindful of my duties to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of National Landscapes.

The surrounding area is semi-rural and is characterised by open countryside, woodland and hedgerows. The proposed outbuilding would be confined to domestic garden land with materials that would complement the host dwelling. In that context, it would be no more harmful when viewed from the surrounding landscape than the existing situation where there are two outbuildings in more or less the same position. The proposed development would therefore have a neutral effect on the NL.

In this regard, the proposed development would comply with policies GC1 and LSQ1 of the LP and policies CS20 and CS22 of the [name] for Chiltern District (2011) which collectively seek high quality design and for development to conserve the special landscape character of high scenic quality of the Area of Outstanding National Beauty (now National Landscapes).

In addition to the standard time limit for commencement of the development, I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans to provide certainty. I have also imposed a condition requiring the external materials to match those as indicated on the planning application form in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding countryside.

The Council have suggested a condition tying the outbuilding to ancillary or incidental use connected to the dwelling. However, I do not consider such a condition necessary as if the building was not used as an outbuilding connected to the dwelling, a separate planning permission would be required.

For the reasons given above, although I have found some conflict with the development plan in respect of Green Belt policies, material considerations lead me to conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.