Case Reference: 3311270

Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 27 September 2023
by H Wilkinson BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 19th October 2023
Appeal Ref: APP/A1910/D/22/3311270
The Old Stables, Delmer End Lane, Flamstead, Hertfordshire AL3 8ER
• 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 [APPELLANT] against the decision of Dacorum Borough
Council.
• The application Ref 22/02159/FHA, dated 6 July 2022, was refused by notice dated
25 August 2022.
• The development proposed is the construction of double garage.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction
of double garage at The Old Stables, Delmer End Lane, Flamstead,
Herefordshire AL3 8ER in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref
22/02159/FHA, dated 6 July 2022, subject to the following conditions:
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years
from the date of this decision;
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
the following approved plans;
- Drawing No 3818-L1 – Location Plan
- Drawing No 3818-L6 – Proposed Site Layout
- Drawing No 3818-P2A – Proposed Garage
3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the
development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing
dwelling.
Main Issue
2. The main issue in this appeal is whether the proposal would be inappropriate
development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy
Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies.
Reasons
Whether inappropriate development
3. The appeal site is located within the Green Belt. Paragraph 149 of the
Framework indicates that the construction of new buildings within the Green
Belt is inappropriate development, which is by definition harmful. However,
there are several exceptions set out in paragraph 149 which are not regarded
as inappropriate, one of which relates to the extension or alteration of a
building. This exception applies on the proviso that the development would not
result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original
building. Policy CS5 of the Dacorum’s Local Planning Policy Framework Core
Strategy 2006-2031 (the Strategy) broadly conforms to the national Green Belt
policy objectives. Neither the Framework nor Policy CS5 indicate that an
extension must be attached.
4. The proposed garage would occupy an area of hardstanding which is currently
used for vehicular parking. Although the proposed garage would be detached
from the main dwelling, it would have a functional and close relationship both
physically and visually and its scale would be domestic. Consequently, it would
appear as a normal domestic adjunct. Under these circumstances, and having
regard to relevant case law1, I am satisfied that the appeal development could
be considered as an extension of a building.
5. The Framework does not define what is meant by ‘disproportionate additions’
beyond a comparison between the original building, any built extensions, and
the extent of what is proposed. Moreover, whilst Core Strategy Policy CS5
refers to ‘limited extensions’, the policy criteria do not specify a test of
proportionality. Such an assessment is therefore a matter of planning
judgement.
6. For the purposes of the Framework ‘original building’ means a building as it
existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after that date, as it was originally
built. The evidence before me indicates that the dwelling replaced a former
barn and stables which originated from the 1950’s. In relation to buildings
constructed after 1 July 1948, the definition of ‘original building’ in the Glossary
to the Framework does not expressly deal with replacements. However, the
Courts have held that the building as it was originally built must be considered
when assessing proportionality. Consequently, in determining the appeal, I
have based my assessment on the original buildings and not the replacement
building which currently exists.
7. There are no plans of the former barn and stables before me. Nevertheless, the
appellant indicates that the replacement dwelling largely occupies the footprint
of the original buildings and is of a lesser floor space and volume. Based on the
available evidence, I have no reason to doubt this. The proposed garage would
increase both the footprint and volume of the original building. However, given
the limited scale of the proposal both in terms of its footprint and height, I find
that the overall increase would be relatively modest. Consequently, having
regard to the scale of the original building together with proposed garage, I am
satisfied that the overall addition would be limited and would not result in a
disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building.
8. For these reasons, the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the
Green Belt as defined by paragraph 149 of the Framework. It would also
comply with Core Strategy Policy CS5 in so far as the appeal proposal would be
a limited extension to an existing building.
9. The reason for refusal indicates that the proposal would affect the openness of
the Green Belt. However, as I have found that the proposal would not be
1 Warwick DC v SSLUHC, Mr J Storer & Mrs A Lowe [2022] EWHC 2145 (Admin)
inappropriate development, paragraph 149 c) does not require me to consider
this aspect any further. I therefore have not done so.
Conditions
10. I have had regard to the planning conditions suggested by the Council and
have considered them against the tests in the Framework and the advice in the
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). I have made such amendments as necessary
to comply with those documents and for clarity and consistency.
11. In addition to the standard time limit condition, and in the interests of
certainty, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried
out in accordance with the approved plans. Whilst the supporting documents
indicate that the external materials and finishes would match the dwelling,
these are not specified on the proposed plans. As such, I have imposed a
condition requiring the use of matching materials to safeguard the character
and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area.
Conclusion
12. For the reasons given above, having regard to the development plan taken as a
whole, and all other material considerations including the Framework, the
appeal is allowed.
H Wilkinson
INSPECTOR