Construction of a single storey garden building

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 September 2018 by S Poole BA(Hons) DipArch MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 12th October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/P0240/D/18/3206515 246 Dunstable Road, Studham, Dunstable, Bedfordshire LU6 2QJ  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 M Byrne against the decision of the Central Bedfordshire Council.  The application Ref CB/17/06002/FUL, dated 18 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 2 May 2018.  The development proposed is the construction of a single storey garden building. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. At the time of my visit the garden building was at an advanced stage of construction. To all intents and purposes the appeal therefore relates to an application for retrospective planning permission. 3. As the Pre-Submission Local Plan 2015-2035 is at an early stage of adoption I have considered the appeal against the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review (2014) (LPR) policies referred to in the reasons for refusal. 4. A revised National Planning Policy Framework was published on 24 July 2018. I am satisfied that this revised Framework does not differ from the 2012 Framework in respect of the matters before me and have not therefore deemed it necessary to seek parties’ comments on the revised Framework. Main Issues 5. The main issues in this case are: (i) whether the appeal scheme would be inappropriate development for the purposes of section 13 of the Framework and development plan policy; (ii) the effect of the appeal scheme on the openness of the Green Belt; (iii) the effect of the appeal scheme on the character and appearance of the area; (iv) the effect of the appeal scheme on the living conditions of occupiers of neighbour properties, with particular regard to outlook; and Appeal Decision APP/P0240/D/18/3206515 2 (v) if the appeal scheme is 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 the development. Reasons 6. The appeal site comprises a 2-storey semi-detached house with a long rear garden. The subject of the appeal is a single-storey outbuilding that has been constructed next to the rear boundary of the garden. 7. Paragraph 145 of the Framework states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate. A number of exceptions to this are identified in the Framework but the appeal scheme does not fall within any of the categories of development listed. The scheme is therefore contrary to paragraph 145 of the Framework and is inappropriate development that is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. I attribute substantial weight to this. Openness of the Green Belt 8. Paragraph 133 of the Framework states that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. 9. Whilst the appeal scheme is a relatively small building compared to nearby houses and is not visible from public viewpoints, it would result in a significant increase of the overall volume, bulk and amount of development in an immediate setting of undeveloped back gardens. As a consequent it would reduce, and therefore cause harm to, the openness of the Green Belt. The appeal scheme therefore also conflicts with the Framework in this respect, a matter to which I also attribute substantial weight. Character and appearance 10. The appeal site is situated in an area comprising a range of housing types set in generally large and verdant plots. Whilst the scheme is not visible from public viewpoints it is situated immediately next to the rear boundary shared with the rear garden of the property to the rear in Holywell Road. The roof of the appeal scheme is highly visible from this rear garden and, due to its height and size, is an alien and obtrusive built element in this generally verdant and undeveloped area. 11. For these reasons the appeal scheme has an unacceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area. It is therefore fails to accord with Policy BE8 of the South Bedfordshire Local Plan Review (2014) (LPR) which, amongst other matters, seeks to ensure that the size, scale and massing of the development complements and harmonises with the local surroundings. It is also contrary to the aims of the Framework and the Central Bedfordshire Design Guide. Living conditions 12. Whilst the appeal scheme is a visually obtrusive element when viewed from the neighbouring garden to the rear, it is not overbearing. I am satisfied that the occupiers of the neighbouring property retain acceptable levels of outlook and Appeal Decision APP/P0240/D/18/3206515 3 that the appeal scheme does not have an unacceptable effect on their living conditions. In this particular respect the scheme complies with part (vii) of LPR Policy BE8 which seeks development that has no unacceptable adverse effect upon general or residential amenity. Other considerations 13. I turn now to consider whether there are any considerations sufficient to clearly outweigh the harm identified above in respect of inappropriateness and openness. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless the harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 14. I note that, subject to various limitations, Class E, Part 1, Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 allows for the erection of outbuildings required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse. As the appeal property is situated within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, to be permitted development any such building would need to either be within 20m of the dwelling or less than 10sqm in footprint if more than 20m from the dwelling. 15. In my judgement the options open to the appellant under permitted rights would have a lesser impact on the character and appearance of the area and openness of the Green Belt. As such I attach limited weight to these possible fall-back scenarios. In coming to this view I have taken into account that a grant of permission for the appeal scheme could be subject to a planning condition that removes Class E permitted development rights. Green Belt balancing exercise 16. The other considerations do not amount to matters that clearly outweigh the substantial harm to the Green Belt that I have identified in respect of the appeal scheme’s inappropriateness and effect on openness, or the harm to the character and appearance of the area. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development do not therefore exist and the appeal scheme is therefore contrary to the Framework. 17. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should fail. S Poole INSPECTOR