“1. (i) In considering the “materially larger” test in relation to the proposal for a replacement dwelling, he failed to consider the flexibility criterion in judging materiality. (ii) In relation to the proposal for a replacement dwelling, he erred in law in concluding that loss of openness, albeit “limited” would be harmful and therefore impermissible. (iii) In relation to the proposal for a replacement dwelling, in judging the impact of openness, he erred by taking into account the increase in “built development” on the site without distinguishing between the impact at ground level and above ground level. 2. The foregoing grounds 1 (i) to 1 (iii) are repeated in relation to the proposal for the altered dwelling. 3. In relation to the Very Special Circumstances in paragraph 88 of the NPPF, he: - failed to distinguish between definitional harm and actual harm; - failed to consider the impact of either proposal on the purposes served by the section of Green Belt in which the appeal site is situated; - limited his considerations of other countervailing considerations to the “benefits” the proposals would bring.”
“79. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. 80. Green Belt serves five purposes: • to check the unrestricted sprawl of large built-up areas; • to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another; • to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment; • to preserve the setting and special character of historic towns; and • to assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict and other urban land. 81. Once Green Belts have been defined, local planning authorities should plan positively to enhance the beneficial use of the Green Belt, such as looking for opportunities to provide access; to provide opportunities for outdoor sport and recreation; to retain and enhance landscapes, visual amenity and biodiversity; or to improve damaged and derelict land. 82. The general extent of Green Belts across the country is already established. New Green Belts should only be established in exceptional circumstances, for example when planning for larger scale development such as new settlements or major urban extensions. If proposing a new Green Belt, local planning authorities should: • demonstrate why normal planning and development management policies would not be adequate; • set out whether any major changes in circumstances have made the adoption of this exceptional measure necessary; • show what the consequences of the proposal would be for sustainable development; • demonstrate the necessity for the Green Belt and its consistency with Local Plans for adjoining areas; and • show how the Green Belt would meet the other objectives of the Framework. 83. Local planning authorities with Green Belts in their area should establish Green Belt boundaries in their Local Plans which set the framework for Green Belt and settlement policy. Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances, through the preparation or review of the Local Plan. At that time, authorities should consider the Green Belt boundaries having regard to their intended permanence in the long term, so that they should be capable of enduring beyond the plan period. 84. When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries local planning authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. They should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary. 85. When defining boundaries, local planning authorities should: • ensure consistency with the Local Plan strategy for meeting identified requirements for sustainable development; • not include land which it is unnecessary to keep permanently open; • where necessary, identify in their plans areas of ‘safeguarded land’ between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period; • make clear that the safeguarded land is not allocated for development at the present time. Planning permission for the permanent development of safeguarded land should only be granted following a Local Plan review which proposes the development; • satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the development plan period; and • define boundaries clearly, using physical features that are readily recognisable and likely to be permanent. 86. If it is necessary to prevent development in a village primarily because of the important contribution which the open character of the village makes to the openness of the Green Belt, the village should be included in the Green Belt. If, however, the character of the village needs to be protected for other reasons, other means should be used, such as conservation area or normal development management policies, and the village should be excluded from the Green Belt. 87. As with previous Green Belt policy, inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 88. When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 89. A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. Exceptions to this are: • buildings for agriculture and forestry; • provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport, outdoor recreation and for cemeteries, as long as it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it; • the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building; • the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces; • limited infilling in villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under policies set out in the Local Plan; or • limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites (brownfield land), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development. 90. Certain other forms of development are also not inappropriate in Green Belt provided they preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in Green Belt. These are: • mineral extraction; • engineering operations; • local transport infrastructure which can demonstrate a requirement for a Green Belt location; • the re-use of buildings provided that the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction; and • development brought forward under a Community Right to Build Order. 91. When located in the Green Belt, elements of many renewable energy projects will comprise inappropriate development. In such cases developers will need to demonstrate very special circumstances if projects are to proceed. Such very special circumstances may include the wider environmental benefits associated with increased production of energy from renewable sources. 92. Community Forests offer valuable opportunities for improving the environment around towns, by upgrading the landscape and providing for recreation and wildlife. An approved Community Forest plan may be a material consideration in preparing development plans and in deciding planning applications. Any development proposals within Community Forests in the Green Belt should be subject to the normal policies controlling development in Green Belts.”
“Inappropriateness 5. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) sets out in paragraph 89 that the construction of new buildings is regarded as inappropriate but provides exceptions to that general premise, which include the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, and the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. 6. Dealing firstly with the replacement proposal, the relevant test is whether the replacement dwelling would be materially larger than the one it replaces. This is a reference to size, and the Court of Appeal in R (oao Heath and Hampstead Society) v Camden LBC & Others[2008] EWCA Civ 193 , held that size is the primary test, rather than visual impact. Thus, the appellants’ contention that it is “visual footprint” that is a key determinant is not consistent with this legal authority. 7. Size can be assessed in a number of ways, but the Court held that floorspace is an important indicator. The proposed replacement dwelling would be built on much of the floorprint of the existing house, but its floorspace would be substantially greater as a result of a much larger basement area, garage and second floor. The Council’s calculation is that the increase in floorspace would be 57% over the existing dwelling (including the existing garage), and this appears to be to be about right. It is not appropriate to take into account the removal of outbuildings when assessing changes in size, as outbuildings do not form part of the original dwelling and could be replaced under permitted development rights. 8. Moreover, the overall bulk of the building would be greatly increased as a result of the much larger roof, which would bring about a significant increase in the height of the accommodation within the roofspace, and that of the larger garage and swimming pool building. In my view, this would result in the proposed replacement being materially larger than the house it would replace, and thus it would amount to inappropriate development. 9. In respect of the proposed extensions and alterations, for the same reasons as I have given above, the enlargement would be disproportionate, amounting to well over half the floorspace again over the original dwelling and garage. It follows therefore that the proposal must be considered to be inappropriate development. 10. The appellants have referred me to other permissions granted by the Council and by others. In respect of Cornerways, I have not been provided with all of the details but the part of the officer report quoted makes it clear that the officers assessed visual impact in respect of openness and the visual amenity of the Green Belt. There is no discussion about whether the development would be a disproportionate addition, although the figures provided by the appellants suggest that the proposal in that case would be a considerable increase in size. If that is the case, it would appear that the law as set down by the Hampstead judgement was not applied, and therefore I can only afford it limited weight. The Council indicates that it has taken a consistent approach on disproportionate development elsewhere, although I have insufficient information to judge whether this is the case. 11. The planning permission for Willow Mead is said to have involved a footprint increase of 52%, which on the fact of it, sounds like a substantial addition, but as in this case, height and bulk also play a role in assessing size, and there is insufficient information before me to enable me to conclude that the Council approved a disproportionate extension, or whether there were very special circumstances which justified it. 12. The appellants referred me to an appeal decision in respect of Walnut Burrow, Loudwater Drive, Loudwater, Rickmansworth in Three Rivers District Council’s area (Ref: APP/P1940/E/2080040 & 2080048). The appellants say that this site was in the Green Belt, but the Inspector makes no reference to the Green Belt, and it was not a matter that was at issue. It therefore find this case to be of no relevance insofar as Green Belt considerations are involved. 13. I attach very little weight to the comparison of the appear site with other properties in the area and their relationship to their plot sizes, as inappropriateness is more a question of the increase in size in relation to the original dwelling, rather than in relation to the site context. 14. I have been referred to guidance issued by Sevenoaks District Council in relation to extensions of dwellings in the Green Belt, but I can only give this very limited weight because it is for each local authority to adopt its own policies, albeit that they must be consistent with national guidance, and it would not be appropriate to apply others’ policies to this case. 15. The Council allowed two dwellings on the site in 1990, although the permission was not implemented. I can draw little from this, as I do not know enough about the size of the dwellings permitted in relation to what stood there before, what the relevant development plan policies were in force at that time, or whether there were any other material consideration. Moreover the decision precedes the Hampstead judgment referred to above. 16. I therefore conclude on the first main issue that both proposals amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is by definition harmful. The proposals would also conflict with Policy 7.16 of the London Plan (2011), Policy CS1.F of the Harrow core Strategy (2012) (CS) and Policies DM6 and DM16 of the Development Management Policies Local Plan (2013) (DMPLP), all of which deal with, or include, Green Belt considerations. 17. The Council alleges a conflict with CS Policy CS6.A in respect of this issue, but this policy does not relate to Green Belt considerations and I find no conflict in this regard.”
“The effect on openness 18. “Openness” is not defined either in the Framework or in any development plan policies, but I take it to mean an absence of building or development, and the extent to which a building or development may be seen from the public realm is not a decisive matter. The proposals would result in an increase in the scale of building through the greater height and bulk of the roof of the dwelling and from the larger garage. This would result in a net increase in the amount of built development on the site, even when taking into account the buildings which would be removed from the site. 19. The loss of openness would be limited. However, the Framework says that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence, and therefore I attach significant weight to even the limited loss of openness that would occur in this instance. I therefore conclude that the proposals would result in a harmful loss of openness and would conflict with DMPLP Policy DM16.”
“Balancing Exercise 38. I have found that the proposals would result in harm from inappropriateness as well as harm to the openness of the Green Belt. However, I have found no material harm would result to the character and appearance of the area or to the living conditions of neighbours. I also attach some weight to the benefit that the proposals would bring in providing a modern, emergency-efficient dwelling which would meet the personal needs of the appellants and their family. 39. Although the harm that would result to openness would be limited, the Framework says that when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. It goes on to say that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 40. The benefits that the proposal would bring are not so great that they clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt that I have identified. Accordingly very special circumstances to justify the development do not exist in these cases.”
“(1) Decisions of the Secretary of State and his inspectors in appeals against the refusal of planning permission are to be construed in a reasonably flexible way. Decision letters are written principally for parties who know what the issues between them are and what evidence and argument has been deployed on those issues. An inspector does not need to “rehearse every argument relating to each matter in every paragraph” (see the judgment of Forbes J in Seddon Properties v Secretary of State for the Environment(1981) 42 P & CR 26 , at page 28). (2) The reasons for an appeal decision must be intelligible and adequate, enabling one to understand why the appeal was decided as it was and what conclusions were reached on the “principal important controversial issues”
“6. An application under section 288 is not an opportunity for a review of the planning merits of an Inspector’s decision. An allegation that an Inspector’s conclusion on the planning merits is Wednesbury perverse is, in principle, within the scope of a challenge under section 288, but the court must be astute to ensure that such challenges are not used as a cloak for what is, in truth, a rerun of the arguments on the planning merits. 7. In any case, where an expert tribunal is the fact finding body the threshold of Wednesbury unreasonableness is a difficult obstacle for an applicant to surmount. That difficulty is greatly increased in most planning cases because the Inspector is not simply deciding questions of fact, he or she is reaching a series of planning judgments. For example: is a building in keeping with its surroundings? Could its impact on the landscape be sufficiently ameliorated by landscaping? Is the site sufficiently accessible by public transport? et cetera. Since a significant element of judgment is involved there will usually be scope for a fairly broad range of possible views, none of which can be categorised as unreasonable. 8. Moreover, the Inspector’s conclusions will invariably be based not merely upon the evidence heard at any inquiry or an informal hearing, or contained in written representations but, and this will often be of crucial importance, upon the impressions received on the site inspection. Against this background an applicant alleging an Inspector has reached a Wednesbury unreasonable conclusion on matters of planning judgment, faces a particularly daunting task. It might be though that the basic principles set out above are so well known that they do not need restating. But the Claimant’s challenge in the present case, although couched in terms of Wednesday unreasonableness, is, in truth, a frontal assault upon the Inspector’s conclusions on the planning merits in this Green Belt case.”
“This would result in a net increase in the amount of built development on the site, even when taking into account the buildings which would be removed from the site”
“28. The Council also argues that the use of a section of crown roof would be alien to the more traditional pitched roofs found in the area. However, the house at Potter’s End, a large house on an adjoining plot also has a crown roof. Moreover, it is almost impossible to discern that the building has a crown roof other than from an aerial position, and the same would also apply to the appeal building. I consider that the use of a crown roof would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area”
“- failed to distinguish between definitional harm and actual harm; - failed to consider the impact of either proposal on the purposes served by the section of Green Belt in which the appeal site is situated; - limited his considerations of other countervailing considerations to the “benefits” the proposals would bring.”
“38. I have found that the proposals would result in harm from inappropriateness as well as harm to the openness of the Green Belt. However, I have found no material harm would result to the character and appearance of the area or to the living conditions of neighbours. I also attach some weight to the benefit that the proposals would bring in providing a modern, energy-efficient dwelling which would meet the personal needs of the appellants and their family. 39. Although the harm that would result to openness would be limited, the Framework says that when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. It goes on to say that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of appropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 40. The benefits that the proposal would bring are not so great that they clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt that I have identified. Accordingly very special circumstances to justify the development do not exist in these cases.”
“35 The need for Green Belft harm and other harm to be clearly outweighed has been emphasised by Mr Justice Sullivan (as he then was) in Doncaster NBC v Secretary of State[2002] EWHC 808 at paragraph 67 and 70 of his judgment and by the Court of Appeal in Wychavon District Council v Secretary of State[2008] EWCA Civ 692 (at paragraph 26) endorsing the formulation in Doncaster which at paragraph 70 read as follows: “Given that inappropriate development is by definition harmful, the proper approach is whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness and the further harm, albeit limited, cause to the openness and purpose of the Green Belt, was clearly outweighed by the benefit to the appellant’s family and particularly to the children so as to amount to very special circumstances justifying an exception to Green Belt policy.”
“10.3.4 The Inspector failed also to identify the purpose(s) served by the section of Green Belt in which the proposed developments were situated and to take into account whether either development would compromise the purpose(s) served by that section of Green Belt. Such consideration is plainly a material; factor in assessing VSCs.”
“It goes on to say that very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations”