Appeal 6007101

The appeal is dismissed.

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.

During my site visit, I observed a development which appeared the same as that shown on the plans. I have therefore determined the appeal on the basis that planning permission is sought to retain the development that has been constructed and for clarity, based on what is shown on the plans.

The appeal site is within the Green Belt and so the main issues are: • Whether or not the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies. • The effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt. • If the development is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the development.

The appeal site comprises a detached single-storey dwellinghouse with rooms in the roof space. It is located on the southern side of the heavily trafficked A245 ( [site address] ) in a row with several other properties. The northern side of the road is heavily vegetated. There is a footway between the road and the properties at this location and the appeal site has a wooden boundary fence and wooden access gates with crossovers at either end. The development subject to this appeal is the set of gates to the east side of the front boundary.

The National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The Framework outlines that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt subject to a number of exceptions as set out in paragraph 154. All other development not covered by any of the exceptions is therefore inappropriate. This includes boundary treatments.

The Elmbridge Borough Local Plan Development Management Plan (April 2015) (the Local Plan) Policy DM17 is consistent with the Green Belt aims of the Framework in terms of acknowledging that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt will constitute inappropriate development, unless the buildings fall within the list of exceptions identified by the Framework.

The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 refers to buildings as including any structure or erection. Given the height of the fence and the span of the gates, this development should be considered as a building.

The development does not fall within any of the exceptions listed in paragraph 154 of the Framework and none have been suggested by the appellant. As such, it is inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This is a matter to which I afford substantial weight in the planning balance.

The Framework outlines that one of the essential characteristics of Green Belts is their openness. Openness has both a spatial and a visual aspect. By its very nature of placing built development where there is currently none, the development cannot fail but to have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt in spatial terms.

I acknowledge that there are an existing boundary fence and an existing opening set of gates to one side of the site. The development is in keeping with this boundary treatment; however, it closes the free access to the other side of the site. Taking the overall size and scale of the development, the harm to the openness of the Green Belt from a spatial aspect is modest.

The development is approximately 1.7 metres(m) tall and approximately 5m wide. It continues the boundary treatment and the properties relationship with the road. Despite being set back from the road, it is clearly visible from the public highway and introduces additional width, size and scale to the boundary treatment that increases the overall extent of its visual perception. Nonetheless, that harm is modest.

Overall, I consider that the effect on the openness of the Green Belt is modest, and I therefore give this harm limited weight.

Paragraph 153 of the Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Stating that very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The development in this case amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the Framework requires that substantial weight be attached to the harm in that regard. It causes limited harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

I acknowledge that the appellant has raised matters of noise reduction, property security and safety of children visiting the property. However, I have no evidence before me that demonstrates how these considerations outweigh the harm I have identified. In the absence of any such evidence I conclude that these elements do not outweigh that harm.

I acknowledge a previous appeal for a similar set of gates to the other end of the front boundary. However, that appeal was determined on the issue of highway safety and I therefore distinguish it from the current appeal and afford it little weight.

I acknowledge that the matter of highway safety has not been raised in this appeal. However, compliance in this regard is a neutral matter that does not outweigh the harm identified.

I acknowledge the appellants frustration that other properties have similar developments. However, I have no evidence before me to demonstrate under which development plan and against which policies those developments at other properties were considered, or what the main considerations were, or if they even have planning permission at all. As such I afford them little weight.

The development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. When considered as a whole, modest harm is caused to the openness of the Green Belt. The substantial weight to be given to the cumulative Green Belt harm arising from the development is not clearly outweighed by the other considerations as outlined above. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. Therefore, the development does not accord with the Green Belt aims of the Framework and the Local Plan.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

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