Engineering operations, erection of glass and metal balustrade, boundary fencing and erection of timber gazebo structure

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 August 2026 by K Winnard LL.B Hons Solicitor an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 28 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6011601 Quince Cottage, 4 The Bank, Stoneleigh, Warwickshire CV8 3DA • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Paul Gurney against the decision of Warwick District Council. • The application Ref is W/26/0156 • The development is described as engineering operations, erection of glass and metal balustrade, boundary fencing and erection of timber gazebo structure. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. The development that is the subject of the appeal has been completed. The Council has indicated that it has no concerns with regard to the engineering operations, the erection of glass and metal balustrade and boundary fencing elements of the appeal and I am advised that planning permission has been subsequently granted for these elements of the appeal scheme. Notwithstanding this, the whole scheme is before me and whilst I will have regard to the planning permission now granted, insofar as my determination is concerned, I shall direct my assessment on the timber gazebo structure erected on the appeal site. From what I saw, the gazebo structure appears to reflect the plans in this appeal application which now seeks to regularise this element of the development. 3. There have been changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) since the determination of the planning application. Both parties have therefore been given the opportunity to comment on whether they are any implications for the appeal. I have had regard to the position of both parties in making my decision and in so doing I am satisfied that no party has been prejudiced by my consideration of this issue. Main Issues 4. The main issues in the appeal are as follows: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; • If so, the effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; and Appeal Decision 6011601 2 • Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Reasons Inappropriate Development 5. Quince Cottage is sited within Stoneleigh, defined in the Warwick District Local Plan 2011-2029 (LP) as a Limited Infill Village, which is washed over by the West Midlands Green Belt. Policy DS18 of the LP states that national planning policy will be applied to proposals within the Green Belt. The Framework states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it falls within one of the categories in policy GB7, which includes: (1)(b) the reuse, extension, alteration, or replacement of an existing building provided that the existing building is of permanent and substantial construction, is lawful in planning terms, and any extension or alteration will not result in a disproportionate increase in size compared to the original building.1 6. The Council assessed the application on the basis that the garage is the ‘original building’ for the purposes of assessing the proposal under Policy GB7(1)(b) of the Framework. This approach is not disputed by the appellant in the appeal submissions. Indeed, the appellant’s evidence states that the garage is the relevant building in this case, and acknowledges that the test in establishing whether the proposal is inappropriate development, and by definition harmful, is whether the gazebo results in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original garage. 7. It is a matter of fact and degree as to whether the garage should be treated as the original building. Whilst the garage has a functional link with the host property, it is sited some distance away at the far end of a lengthy rear garden, and direct access to it is gained from a track to the side of the neighbouring property of Quince Cottage. As such there is a significant separation distance between it and Quince Cottage, with very little visual connectivity. Accordingly, I do not consider it to be a normal domestic adjunct, and on this basis, I shall consider the scheme against the baseline of the garage as the original building. 8. The existing garage was constructed around 1983, although the appellant states that it replaced a historic structure of the same size, which is indicated on an historic map I have seen from 1923. However, from the information before me, I cannot be certain as to the form, height, dimensions, and volume of the historic outbuilding; nor the date on which it was demolished. Therefore, there is no certainty that the historic outbuilding existed on 1 July 1948, and therefore that it would fall within the Framework’s definition of an original building. In the absence of definitive information in respect of the historic outbuilding, I have based my assessment on the original building being of a broadly similar size to the existing garage at the time of its construction. 9. It is common ground that the garage, which is of a permanent and substantial construction had a floorspace of approximately 30.8 square metres when it was built. It is a single storey building with a steeply pitched roof, and the plans show 1 Defined in the Framework as a building as it existed on 1 July 1948, or if constructed after 1 July 1948, as constructed. Appeal Decision 6011601 3 that it occupies approximately half of the width of the garden. These factors contribute to the size of the original building. 10. Neither the Framework nor Policy DS18 define disproportionate. Therefore, it is ultimately a matter of planning judgement as to whether the development results in a disproportionate increase in size compared to the original building. The explanatory text to Policy H14 of the LP suggests that an increase of more than 30% of the gross floor space of the original dwelling would be likely to be considered disproportionate within the Green Belt. However, I do not find this to be determinative because Policy H14 does not apply to sites in Limited Infill Villages and therefore is not directly relevant to the appeal scheme. Moreover, the explanatory text states that a range of other factors should be considered. Indeed, given that the Framework refers to ‘size’ this would entail considerations of a range of matters, including any increase in volume, floorspace, footprint and external dimensions. 11. The garage has previously been extended, with flat roofed elements to the rear and a front veranda. Together, these extensions enlarged the depth, footprint, and overall volume of the garage considerably, with the evidence from both parties indicating the floorspace of the original building increased to around 53.2sqm. 12. Notwithstanding its open sided construction and its low height relative to the garage, the gazebo has enlarged the original building further, almost doubling its width, and extending the built form across most of the rear part of the garden. According to the Council’s calculations, which have not been disputed by the appellant, the gazebo in cumulation with the existing extensions has resulted in a substantial increase in the floor space of the original building, of approximately 172%. Overall, and even though the form of the existing garage remains legible, the extensions have fundamentally altered the overall shape and scale of the original building, such that the gazebo has led to a disproportionate increase in its size. Consequently, the development is not one that would fall within the category set out in Policy GB7(1)(b) of the Framework. 13. Reference has also been made to the exception contained in Policy GB7(1)(c) of the Framework, which allows for limited infilling in villages lying within the Green Belt. Whilst the term ‘limited infilling’ is not defined in the Framework it generally refers to development in a gap in an otherwise built-up frontage. This is not the case in this instance as the development comprises the extension of a garage and there is a wide separation between the gazebo and buildings to the east and north. As such it does not have the character of infilling a gap between buildings. Therefore, the development is not one that would fall within the category set out in Policy GB7(1)(c). 14. I conclude therefore that the gazebo structure constitutes inappropriate development within the Green Belt, which is by definition harmful to the Green Belt, a matter to which I am required to attach substantial weight. The development would also be contrary to LP Policy DS18. Openness and purposes 15. Due to the form, scale, and siting of the gazebo, this element of the development does not conflict with any of the five purposes of the Green Belt set out in policy GB2 of the Framework. However, the Framework states that the objective of the of Appeal Decision 6011601 4 Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, and the essential features of the Green Belts are their openness and permanence. It goes on to say that substantial weight should be given to harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. 16. Openness has both a visual and spatial aspect. Even without solid walls, the roofed and pillared structure introduces built form where previously there was none, and the overall mass of built form in this part of the garden would be increased. Therefore, there would be a loss of openness in spatial terms notwithstanding the large size of the garden compared to the footprint of the buildings. Due to its height, the gazebo is visible in views from private neighbouring gardens and in limited public views from the highway. Overall, therefore, the development has caused harm to the openness of the Green Belt albeit at a small and localised scale. Other Considerations 17. Other than on Green Belt grounds, the Council raises no concerns to the appeal scheme. The absence of harm however in these other respects is not a positive consideration, as acceptability in design and amenity terms is to be expected. 18. Quince Cottage is a Grade II Listed building sited within the Stoneleigh Conservation Area. (SCA). Section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (PLBCA) prescribes a duty upon a decision maker to give special regard to the desirability of preserving the listed building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Additionally, Section 72(1) of the PLBCA in respect of development in conservation areas, states that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. Furthermore, the Framework states (Policy HE6(3)) states that any harm to designated heritage assets will be a matter of considerable importance and weight. 19. Quince Cottage dates back to the seventeenth century and its significance is in both its architectural and historic being. It has a spacious curtilage which separates it both visually and spatially from the garage. The setting of a heritage asset is concerned with the way the heritage asset is experienced. Owing to the land levels, the positioning of the listed building and the siting and design of the gazebo there is limited visibility between it and the listed building. The listed building remains the dominant building in views of the appeal site and the appeal scheme, notwithstanding its contemporary appearance, does not undermine its significance. 20. The significance of the SCA lies in part in the way the village has historically evolved with a clearly defined centre and distinct cottages reflective of its rural and historical character. I note that the Council’s Conservation Officer has been consulted and is satisfied that the development as a whole does not cause harm to the SCA. Although partially visible from The Bank, the bulk of the appeal scheme is not so conspicuous such that its overall harm to the character and appearance of the SCA would be limited. Its therefore has no effect on the significance of the heritage asset and as such it preserves and conserves the character and appearance of the SCA. 21. As a listed building, permitted development rights are restricted and therefore do not provide an opportunity to provide garden structures through an alternative provision. I appreciate the frustration of the appellant that the scheme has not been Appeal Decision 6011601 5 found to be unacceptable in heritage terms, but this does not enable a permitted development fallback as the Green Belt exceptions, amongst other things, only allow for extensions within size limitations. Further, the lack of harm to a heritage asset is a neutral factor which does not weight in favour or against the appeal scheme. 22. The appellant refers also to other garden/garage buildings within the area but no details of these are before me. In any event, the existence of development elsewhere does not in itself justify development which otherwise would be unacceptable. I accept that the development provides amenity space for the occupier of Quince Cottage and his family of Quince Cottage and its construction provided for economic investment within the local built environment. Given the relatively small scale of the development any such benefits do not offer strong support for the development. I attach limited weight in favour of these considerations. Green Belt balance 23. Substantial weight is given to the harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness and harm to its openness. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt is clearly outweighed by other considerations. Taken together, I am satisfied that the other considerations put forward do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal have not been demonstrated. It follows that the development would be contrary to LP Policy DS18, and the Framework, insofar as they seek to resist inappropriate development in the Green Belt except in very special circumstances. Conclusion 24. The development accordingly conflicts with the development plan. There are no material considerations, to indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. K Winnard INSPECTOR