Detached garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 September 2018 by F Rafiq BSc (Hons), MCD, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16th November 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/A4710/D/18/3207766 Heights Barn, Quakers Lane, Sowerby Bridge, HX6 4HJ  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 & Mrs Wood against the decision of Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref 18/00525/HSE dated 27 April 2018 was refused by notice dated 28 June 2018.  The development proposed is a detached garage. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The appeal site lies within the Green Belt and I therefore consider the main issues are:  Whether or not the development subject of this appeal represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt;  The effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt;  The effect of the development on the setting of Heights Barn, a Grade II Listed Building;  If it does amount to inappropriate development, whether the harm by way 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 3. Paragraph’s 145 and 146 of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) define those categories of development, which may be regarded as inappropriate, subject to certain exceptions. One of those exceptions states that the extension or alteration of a building is not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Policy GNE1 of the Replacement Calderdale Unitary Development Plan (UDP) is broadly consistent with the Framework in this regard. Although, the proposal is not an extension of a building, it is clear from Appeal Decision APP/A4710/D/18/3207766 2 references by both the Council and the Appellant that, as it is a domestic garage, it should be considered against the Framework’s exception relating to it as an extension of a building. 4. The appeal site comprises of a barn, previously converted to a residential use that is set in large grounds. Some details of the size of the existing building and the proposed garage have been provided, with the Appellant stating that the garage sought would result in an increase in volume of 260m3. There is no definition of ‘disproportionate’ given in the Framework and I have not been made aware of any local policy or guidance in this respect. Whilst I note the reference to the garage amounting to 15% of the floor area of the host dwelling and less than 20% of the volume of the existing host dwelling, it would nevertheless be a substantial addition that would add to the bulk of development on this site. I was able to see that the garage would be set to one side of the main front elevation of the existing dwelling, but it would nevertheless be to its front. Its hillside location, whilst shielding the proposal from certain vantage points, would result in it being prominent in views from the north. As such, I consider the size of the proposed garage would amount to a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. 5. I therefore conclude that the proposed garage amounts to inappropriate development, which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. As such, it conflicts with Policy GNE1 of the UDP and with Paragraph 143 of the Framework, which specifies that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Openness 6. Paragraph 133 of the Framework notes that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts and that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to keep land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and permanence. Although the garage would be part of an existing building grouping, the proposal would however be an additional form of built development, which would harm the openness of the Green Belt. I therefore conclude that there would conflict with Paragraph 133 of the Framework. Setting of Listed Building 7. The host dwelling is a Grade II listed former barn, which has been identified as being constructed in the late 18th Century. It is formed of hammer dressed stone with a stone slate roof. The proposal would also be formed in natural materials, with stone walling and a stone roof covering. Although the Council have raised concerns on the garage’s proximity to the listed building, with reference to a previously refused application in 2007, its position to one side and single storey form, would ensure that it does not have an adverse impact on the setting of the listed building. 8. I therefore find that there would be no conflict with Policy BE 15 of the UDP, which seeks to ensure that there is no harm to the setting of a Listed Building. There would also be no conflict with Section 16 of the Framework. Appeal Decision APP/A4710/D/18/3207766 3 Other Considerations 9. The proposed development constitutes inappropriate development, harmful to the Green Belt. The presumption against inappropriate development means that this harm alone attracts substantial weight. The development would also reduce the openness of the Green Belt when the most important attributes of Green Belts are their openness and permanence. The Framework makes it clear that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. 10. I have taken into account that the garage size is the minimum requirement for the Appellant’s own vehicles to provide shelter and security. Reference has also been made to additional planting as part of the development. Whilst I have taken these considerations into account, they would not outweigh the identified harm to the Green Belt so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. 11. I appreciate that the materials and style of the proposal would be acceptable, as would surface water discharge and access which would be through an existing driveway. These are however neutral aspects of the proposal and not factors in its favour. Conclusion 12. Having had regard to all the matters before me, I find nothing to materially affect my findings above. The appeal must therefore fail. F Rafiq INSPECTOR