Single storey residential extension

Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 31 March 2021 by Alexander O’Doherty LLB (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20 April 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/C3105/D/21/3266407 Keepers Cover, Weston-on-the-Green, Bicester OX25 3QU • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mrs Ruth Maxted against the decision of Cherwell District Council. • The application Ref 20/03191/F, dated 10 November 2020, was refused by notice dated 5 January 2021. • The development proposed is a single storey residential extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and the weight to be given to a planning obligation made pursuant to a previous planning permission. Reasons Inappropriate development 3. Keepers Cover is a predominantly single storey detached dwelling located in the open countryside and within the Green Belt. It is set within a large plot and is heavily screened by hedges and trees. A village, Weston-on-the-Green, is nearby. 4. The Framework1 establishes that the construction of new buildings within the Green Belt is inappropriate. There are however a limited number of exceptions to this, as set out in paragraph 145 of the Framework. The parties have focussed on paragraph 145 c), being one exception. That sets out that the extension or alteration of a building is not inappropriate development provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 5. It is common ground that the building currently on site is the ‘original building’ for the purposes of paragraph 145 c), and that the proposed extension to Keepers Cover would be modest in size in relation to it. The proposed extension would be single storey and due to its limited scale and footprint I consider that it would not result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. 1 National Planning Policy Framework 2019 Appeal Decision APP/C3105/D/21/3266407 2 6. Thus, the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would comply with Policy ESD14 of the Cherwell Local Plan 2011-2031 Part 1 (adopted 2015) (Local Plan) which seeks to ensure that development maintains the Green Belt’s openness and does not conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt or harm its visual amenities. The proposal would also comply with the provisions of section 13 of the Framework, which seeks to protect the Green Belt against inappropriate development and to maintain its openness. Planning obligation 7. Keepers Cover was built following a planning permission2 which was granted subject to a planning obligation3. Paragraph 7 (a) of the obligation provides that, other than implementing the previous planning permission, the parties ‘will not carry out any development whatsoever’ in respect of the land. In my view, the appellant is correct that the obligation does not make the proposal inappropriate development in the Green Belt, as that assessment is made under the relevant local and national planning policies. In this respect, I have found on the first main issue that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and as any impact on openness is implicitly taken into account in the exceptions specified in paragraph 145 of the Framework, it is not necessary to assess the impact of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt. 8. Nevertheless, the obligation is extant and as such I must consider the weight to be afforded to it in reaching a balanced decision on the proposal. I have taken account of the conclusions of a previous Inspector in relation to a series of linked appeals4 decided in 2018. At that time, the Inspector noted that the obligation was concerned with limiting the further extension of Keepers Cover in view of Keepers Cover being itself a replacement dwelling in the Green Belt. The Inspector found that the obligation continued to serve a useful purpose in limiting extensions to the dwelling in an area of Green Belt, thereby protecting its openness. I concur with the Inspector’s finding that there has been no fundamental change in Green Belt policy, either locally or nationally, since the obligation was entered into. This consideration provides support for the continuing relevance of the obligation. 9. The appellant has referred to development within Weston-on-the-Green and in the local area since the obligation was entered into. However, few details have been provided to convincingly demonstrate that the level of change which might have occurred since that time has significantly affected the surrounding context relevant to Keepers Cover (including in respect of how physically remote the appeal site is from surrounding settlements, and with respect to the provision of nearby services). As such, on the basis of the evidence provided and what I saw I am not satisfied that the surrounding circumstances have changed to such an extent that the obligation is devoid of its purpose. 10. The appellant has asserted that planning permission could be granted, with the obligation being removed or modified before any works could be undertaken. In contrast, I do not consider that it would be reasonable to grant planning permission for a development which would conflict with the clear terms of an 2 Local Planning Authority reference: 97/02148/F 3 File No. TP.13/254, signed and dated 21 July 1998 4 Lead appeal reference: APP/C3105/X/17/3189208 Appeal Decision APP/C3105/D/21/3266407 3 obligation made under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) which served, and continues to serve, a legitimate planning aim. 11. The Council have explained that Keepers Cover is approximately 75% larger than the building it replaced. This figure has not been disputed by the appellant. Accordingly, it is clear that the openness of the Green Belt has already been affected through the building of Keepers Cover in replacement of the previous building on site. The strict terms of the obligation, particularly its preclusion of any development whatsoever, supports the contention that any further development would be liable to adversely affect the Green Belt. 12. I am mindful that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts, and it follows from my findings above that the obligation continues to be materially relevant. Therefore, I afford it significant weight in this appeal. Conclusion 13. Whilst I have found that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, the continuing effect and relevance of the obligation indicates that the appeal must be determined otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of the Local Plan and the Framework referenced in paragraph 6 of this decision. Having considered the development plan as a whole, and the approach given in the Framework, along with all other relevant material considerations, for the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Alexander O’Doherty INSPECTOR