Dorset Council: Chris Miell has recently won an appeal against Dorset Council and secured retrospective planning permission for the erection of a domestic outbuilding located within the front garden of an existing dwelling at Beacon Hill, near Poole.
When we submitted the application, we argued that the proposal was acceptable in Green Belt terms because it complied with the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 (the ‘Framework’). Specifically, we referenced Paragraph 154 of the Framework, which sets out a list of exceptions where development is not inappropriate in the Green Belt.
It was our position that the development benefits from exception (c), which states that “development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless (c) 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.”
In assessing the development, the Planning Officer took a contrary view and concluded that the exception criteria set out at Paragraph 154(c) of the Framework did not apply because “The proposed development is not an extension and is not an alteration of a building, it is a new and stand-alone building.”
We felt that the Council’s approach was contrary to established case law on the matter and we immediately filed an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate. In Warwick DC v SSLUHC, Mr J Storer & Mrs A Lowe [2022] EWHC 2145 (Admin) the judge concluded that paragraph 154 (c) “….is not to be interpreted as being confined to physically attached structures but that an extension for the purposes of that provision can include structures which are physically detached from the building of which they are an extension.”
Within our written submissions, we argued that although the outbuilding is detached from the main dwelling, it has a functional and close relationship both physically and visually with the parent property and thus it is a domestic adjunct, which would benefit from the exception criteria set out at Paragraph 154(c) of the Framework.
In determining the appeal, the Inspector agreed with our assessment. In allowing the appeal they concluded that “The outbuilding, which is domestic in scale, is used by a family member for purposes associated with the residential use of the host dwelling, and due to the proximity and high degree of intervisibility between them, it would have a close relationship with it. Consequently, it would be reasonable to conclude it is a normal domestic adjunct and therefore falls to be considered as an extension to the existing building. By virtue of its height and overall scale, the outbuilding is visually subservient to the host property. Therefore, having regard to the increase in floor area as well as the siting, design and volume of the outbuilding, relative to No 92, it does therefore not result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building”
If you have recently been refused planning permission and would like to know whether it is worth appealing, then why not call Pure Town Planning on 01202 585524 or email info@puretownplanning.co.uk to see how we can help you.
Remember to be quick…. You only have 12 weeks to lodge an appeal for householder works.