Appeal 6007654

The appeal is allowed. Planning permission is granted for the erection of a front extension to form store and two storey rear extension to form additional living accommodation, the installation of 1 no. rear balcony and the erection of outbuilding incidental to the main dwelling at [site address] , [site address] , Alveston, [name] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application,P25/02263/HH, and the plans submitted with it subject to the following

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan Drawing No.2521-[name] 1900 Rev P02, Proposed Site Plan Drawing No. 2521-[name]-1902 Rev P03, [name] and [name].2521-VAL-XX-XX-DR-A-1904 Rev P03 and Existing and [name]/[name]. 2521-VAL-XX-XX-DR-A 1905 Rev P01.

Other than as specified within the application form and approved plans, the materials to be used in the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The development shall proceed in strict accordance with the mitigation measures provided in the Ecological Impact Assessment ([name], September 2025).

Prior to first use of the development hereby approved, the ecological enhancements detailed within the Mitigation and Enhancement Plan of the Ecological Impact Assessment ([name], September 2025) shall be installed and retained as such thereafter.

No external lighting shall be installed until details have been submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Such details shall include lighting specifications and locations designed to prevent light spill over boundary vegetation, and/or bat commuting/foraging habitat so they are not deterred from using the site and that important habitats/new roost provisions are not illuminated. All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the approved details.

The appeal scheme consists of a number of different elements. The Council does not raise any objection to the erection of an outbuilding/gym which would replace two existing outbuildings on the site on the basis it would fall within the exception to inappropriate development provided for at paragraph 154(g) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). My reasoning therefore focusses on those elements of the proposal which are in dispute between the main parties.

The Council changed the description of the development which I note has been used by the appellant within the appeal documentation, including on the appeal form. [name] have used the same description.

The main issue in the appeal is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies.

[site address] is located within the Green Belt. Policy CS5 and CS34 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan Core Strategy 2006-2027 (adopted 2013) (CS) predate the Framework but state that additional restrictions will apply to development within the Green Belt in line with national planning policy. In addition, Policy PSP7 of the South Gloucestershire Local Plan: Policies, Sites and Places Plan (LP) (adopted

states that inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt and will not be acceptable unless very special circumstances can be demonstrated that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm.

The Framework establishes that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate development within the Green Belt unless it 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 and (g) limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Local planning policy is therefore consistent with the Framework’s provisions on Green Belt development.

Turning to the paragraph 154(g) exception, the appeal site consists of a large detached house in spacious grounds which has been previously extended, and a number of detached outbuildings associated with its residential use. There is no dispute between the parties that since the appeal site is not in a built-up area the appeal site falls within the definition of previously developed land (PDL) as defined in Annex 2 of the Framework.

In this instance, the scheme as a whole involves the demolition and removal of two outbuildings, a summerhouse and greenhouse, the removal of a static caravan, the demolition of the conservatory, and extensions located at the south east elevation of the dwelling. The scheme proposes new extensions at ground and first floor level, the remodelling of the south west elevation and a substantial reconfiguration of the internal layout of the dwelling. The Council consider that the scheme falls into separate distinct elements and in the case of the main dwellinghouse represents enlargement and alteration rather than a redevelopment or partial redevelopment of the appeal site, and so falls to be considered individually under separate paragraphs of the Framework.

Whilst the various elements of the scheme are distinct, in my view they represent a reorganisation and rationalisation of the built form on the site removing old and redundant structures. Taking the whole scheme into account, I am satisfied that given the scale of the demolition and building works involved across the appeal site as a whole and the physical changes to the overall property, that the appeal scheme should be considered as partial redevelopment of PDL.

I have considered the appeal decision1 brought to my attention by both parties in respect of whether a proposed scheme fell within paragraph 154(g) if existing structures did not appear to be in a condition which required demolition or replacement. As noted by the Inspector, he formed his own conclusion based on the facts and circumstances of the case. Although relevant, such a decision is not binding on me and does not limit the scope of judgement in individual case circumstances in other locations. There were therefore different considerations in this appeal scheme with regard to what was considered to be a modest level of demolition required to a single building compared to that before me. In this case the scheme would involve, in addition to the partial demolition and extension of the dwelling house, a replanning of the site layout and would represent a rationalisation of structures reducing the total footprint of built development on site. I accept that redevelopment frequently involves the demolition or partial demolition of buildings in need of repair but it does not appear to me that a structure’s physical condition is a determining factor for the exception to apply. In any event, each case must be decided on its own merits and such a decision is not directly comparable to the scheme before me and does not alter my view.

The test with regard to paragraph 154(g) is whether the development causes substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The greater mass of the building would inevitably reduce openness from a spatial perspective, although overall the footprint of built development on the appeal site would be reduced. The site is well secluded and the only public views obtainable are those from the public right of way to the north of the site and the wider landscape. The dwelling as extended would be more visually prominent and have a more obvious presence. Taking both spatial and visual effects into account, the development as a whole would have a modest effect on the openness of the Green Belt. However, whilst the building might be materially larger this would not be so sizeable as to amount to the substantial harm referred to in paragraph 154(g) of the Framework. 1 APP/P0119/D/25/3374214

Accordingly, the development accords with this exception and I find it is not inappropriate development within the Green Belt. Therefore, I conclude the development would accord with the Green Belt provisions of the Framework, and Policies CS5 and CS34 of the CS and LP Policy PSP7. In light of these conclusions, there is no requirement for me to consider further the proposal’s effects on openness or for very special circumstances to be demonstrated. Nor is it necessary for me to consider the exception at paragraph 154(c) of the Framework.

Conditions in respect of timescales and specifying the approved plans are necessary as these provide certainty. A condition regarding the materials to be used is also necessary to ensure that the appearance of the development is satisfactory. Whilst the Council has not suggested any additional conditions I note within the Officer report that conditions are suggested by the ecology officer. Conditions as to the protection of bats and compliance with ecological plans are therefore imposed in the interests of biodiversity.

For the reasons given above having considered the development plan and all other material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed as set out in the formal decision notice above.