Detached ‘green’ timber car port

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 19 April 2021 by Darren Ellis MPlan Decision by Chris Preston BA(Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 May 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/N2739/D/21/3268461 Millstones, Went Edge Road, Kirk Smeaton, Nr Pontefract, West Yorkshire, WF8 3JS • 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 Mr Richard Lankester against the decision of Selby District Council. • The application Ref 2020/0628/HPA, dated 12 June 2020, was refused by notice dated 13 January 2021. • The development proposed is a detached ‘green’ timber car port. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by an Appeal Planning Officer whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issues 3. The appeal site is within the Green Belt and so the main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development for the purposes of development plan policy and the National Planning Policy Framework; • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • if the proposal 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 the very special circumstances necessary to justify it. Reasons for the Recommendation Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development 4. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) establishes that new buildings in the Green Belt are inappropriate except in certain circumstances, including where they involve the extension of an existing building. This is provided that the extension does not result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. The Framework defines ‘original building’ as ‘a building as it existed on 1 July 1948, or, if constructed after 1 Appeal Decision APP/N2739/D/21/3268461 2 July 1948, as it was built originally.’ It does not however define ‘disproportionate’. Consequently, an exercise of judgement will be required in assessing the proposal given its scale and context. 5. Policy SP3 of the Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan (adopted October 2013) (CS) is consistent with the Framework in that it seeks to protect the Green Belt but by preventing inappropriate development unless very special circumstances have been demonstrated to justify the proposed development. 6. The appeal property is a two-storey detached dwelling that has previously been extended on several occasions. The proposed development would see a detached timber car port erected to the side of the dwelling. 7. The Council calculates that the existing extensions have increased the volume of the original property by 126.55%, and that the proposed car port would raise that to 159.70%. The appellant has not contested these figures. 8. The Framework refers to not resulting in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Size is more than a function of volume and includes bulk, mass, and height. From the information before me, the proposed car port and existing extensions would, as a matter of judgement, cumulatively amount to a disproportionate increase above the size of the original building. The cumulative increase in volume would be substantial in terms of the numerical calculation alone. In addition, the apparent scale and mass of the building has already been notably increased, particularly through the existing first floor addition which has visibly increased the bulk of the dwelling, such that the two storey element extends across much of the frontage. The existing additions to the property are already significant. The car port would fill in the only remaining gap to the side of the dwelling and would add to the visual and volumetric impact of previous extensions. 9. Consequently, having regard to the cumulative increase in volume and scale I am firmly of the view that the proposal would amount to a disproportionate addition above the size of the original dwelling, hence conflicting with Policy SP3 of the CS and with the Framework. 10. The proposal would therefore be inappropriate development which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Openness 11. Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. The Planning Practice Guidance states that openness is capable of having both spatial and visible aspects, so that both the visual impact of the proposal and its volume may be relevant.1 The visual bulk of the building would substantially reduce the existing space to the side of the dwelling and as such the proposal would result in a reduction in the openness of the Green Belt. However, given that this side of the dwelling is largely enclosed by other buildings, the harm that would be caused to the openness of the Green Belt would be limited. Nonetheless, one of the fundamental aims of Green Belt policy is to keep land permanently open and paragraph 145 of the Framework identifies that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. I attach weight to the loss of openness accordingly, in addition to the harm by reason of its inappropriateness. 1 Planning Practice Guidance, Paragraph: 001 Reference ID: 64 -001-20190722 Appeal Decision APP/N2739/D/21/3268461 3 Other Considerations 12. I understand the appellant’s desire to provide garaging facilities for a classic car. However, personal circumstances will seldom outweigh more general planning considerations and I attach moderate weight to this matter. 13. The site lies within the Kirk Smeaton Conservation Area. Section 72 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area. The Council has concluded that the design and materials of the car port are acceptable and as such that the proposal would have a neutral impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Based on the evidence before me, I have no reason to disagree. Planning balance and Conclusion 14. The development causes harm to the Green Belt by way of its inappropriateness and to its openness, and the Framework establishes that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. 15. The Framework states that development should not be approved unless the harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Although moderate weight is attached to the other considerations that are raised by the appellant, they do not clearly outweigh the totality of the harm I have identified above. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. 16. Therefore, for the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. D Ellis APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 17. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. Chris Preston INSPECTOR