Romany, Plough Lane, Christleton, Cheshire, CH3 7PT

Romany, Plough Lane, Christleton, Cheshire, CH3 7PT — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 11 October 2022 by Hannah Ellison BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 10th November 2022 Appeal Ref: APP/A0665/W/22/3295144 Romany, Plough Lane, Christleton, Cheshire CH3 7PT • 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 Bolshaw against the decision of Cheshire West and Chester Council. • The application Ref 21/02101/FUL, dated 13 May 2021, was refused by notice dated 14 February 2022. • The development proposed is the demolition of existing bungalow and erection of a replacement dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. During the appeal the appellant submitted additional information which sought to address the Council’s second reason for refusal relating to ecological matters. The Council was afforded an opportunity to comment on the information and it confirmed that, subject to various mitigation and compensation measures which could be suitably controlled via conditions, the proposal does not raise any concerns with regard to ecology. Accordingly, the second reason for refusal falls away. Main Issues 3.

Romany, Plough Lane, Christleton, Cheshire, CH3 7PT — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision The main issues in this case are therefore: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; • The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; and • If found to be inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations and if so, whether this amounts to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal. Reasons Whether inappropriate development 4. The appeal site comprises a detached bungalow, set within a generous sized plot. The site is within open countryside, with other properties nearby arranged in a linear layout along the highway. Due to the low height of the bungalow and https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Romany, Plough Lane, Christleton, Cheshire, CH3 7PT — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/22/3295144 the mature vegetation surrounding the site, the property is not overly apparent in the public realm, with only limited glimpses achieved at various points. 5. STRAT9 of the Cheshire West and Chester Council Local Plan (Part One) Strategic Policies (the LP1) concerns the Green Belt and countryside and notes that in settlements and areas of the countryside that are within the Green Belt, additional restrictions will apply to development in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). 6. The Framework makes it clear that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate in the Green Belt subject to a number of exceptions as set out in paragraph 149 of the Framework. One exception, at paragraph 149 d), is the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. 7.

Romany, Plough Lane, Christleton, Cheshire, CH3 7PT — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision Policy DM21 of the Cheshire West and Chester Council Local Plan (Part Two) Land Allocations and Detailed Policies (the LP2) sets out criteria which the replacement of dwellings should meet. Criteria 4 states that in the Green Belt the replacement dwelling would not be materially larger than the existing dwelling. 8. The explanatory text to LP2 Policy DM21 gives 10% as a general guide as to what constitutes ‘materially larger’. This figure is generally determined by the net increase in floorspace. However, the text goes on to note that in cases where the increase proposed involves an increase in the overall building height, the net increase in volume (measured externally), will also be taken into account. 9. Other examples of replacement buildings which exceed the 10% guideline have been referenced however no further details are provided thus I cannot be certain that they are directly comparable to the appeal proposal. Regardless, the 10% figure is a guideline and it is clear that a number of factors are capable of assisting in determining whether or not a proposal is considered materially larger. As such, there is flexibility in the approach. 10. The proposed replacement dwelling would be two storeys in height.

Romany, Plough Lane, Christleton, Cheshire, CH3 7PT — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision Along with the proposed garage, the development would have a significantly greater floorspace, well in excess of the 10% guideline, and a greater volume than the existing dwelling. Its footprint would also be larger, albeit it would be slightly more compact than the existing. All of these matters combined would clearly result in a very sizeable increase above the existing modest dwelling. 11. Whilst the proposal would be reflective of the scale of other properties in the locality, these factors do not influence the above assessment. Consequently, the proposal would be materially larger than the existing dwelling thus it would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and in conflict with LP2 Policy DM21 and the Framework. Openness of the Green Belt 12. Paragraph 137 of the Framework states that a 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. When applying the concept of openness to the particular facts of https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Romany, Plough Lane, Christleton, Cheshire, CH3 7PT — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/22/3295144 a case, a number of factors are capable of being relevant. For the purposes of this appeal, I have considered both the visual and spatial aspects of openness. 13. I have already found that the proposal would be materially larger than the existing dwelling due to its greater volume, floorspace and footprint. This increased scale and bulk would result in a notable change from the built form currently present at the site and correspondingly would be more readily apparent and visually prominent from public vantage points. 14. Whilst the footprint of the proposed dwelling would be of a more compact form than the existing, the proposal also includes a large detached garage which would be sited in a part of the site currently devoid of built form. This would extend the footprint of the built form across the site. Overall, the proposal would be of a substantial size and would result in a marked reduction to the openness of the Green Belt in both spatial and visual terms. Other considerations 15. There are two consents for two separate schemes for permitted development at the appeal site1. These comprise of a single storey rear extension and two single storey side extensions.

Romany, Plough Lane, Christleton, Cheshire, CH3 7PT — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision The appellant has indicated that both would be implemented if this appeal were to be dismissed. This represents a fallback position. The weight to be afforded to this is a matter of planning judgement based on the specific circumstances of the case. 16. Based on the measurements provided, the collective result of the fallback extensions would be a dwelling with a larger and more sprawling footprint than the smaller and more compact footprint of the appeal proposal. This sprawling layout would reflect the existing arrangement of the bungalow. The fallback would also have a greater volume than the appeal proposal, albeit the differences between both are nominal. The fallback would be across single storey level compared to the two storey height of the appeal proposal. 17. It is clear that both schemes would be arranged in very different ways. The fallback would result in a dwelling that is more spread out at single storey level thus it would result in a greater reduction to the openness of the Green Belt in spatial terms. However, this larger footprint and volume would not be readily discernible given its scale and massing thus it would result in only a limited reduction to the openness of the Green Belt in visual terms.

Romany, Plough Lane, Christleton, Cheshire, CH3 7PT — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision 18. The appeal proposal would result in a marked reduction to the openness of the Green Belt in both spatial and visual terms, taking also into consideration the proposed detached garage. Consequently, when comparing both schemes, the fallback position is afforded only moderate weight. 19. I am not convinced that the design of the fallback would result in a dwelling which would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. The roof form of the fallback would be simple and, overall, the fallback would reflect the design of the existing dwelling. 20. The appellant has drawn my attention to an example at ‘Greystones’. Based on the information before me however it is difficult to make a fully reasoned comparison between this example and the appeal proposal as I cannot ascertain the exact circumstances which led to its approval. I nevertheless note 1 Council references: 19/04060/HHE and 20/02583/LDC https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Romany, Plough Lane, Christleton, Cheshire, CH3 7PT — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/A0665/W/22/3295144 that the Council determined that the fallback in that case would have a significantly greater impact upon the Green Belt than the existing dwelling and the proposed replacement, unlike the fallback in this instance. 21. The appellant suggests that the proposal would result in improved energy efficiency however there is no conclusive evidence before me. I am unconvinced that the existing dwelling could not be updated to a similar standard, with or without the fallback development, or that the proposal would be above any requirements set out in the development plan. I therefore afford this matter limited weight. Whether very special circumstances exist 22. Paragraph 148 of the Framework states that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt and 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. 23. The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would cause harm to its openness. I afford this Green Belt harm substantial weight.

Romany, Plough Lane, Christleton, Cheshire, CH3 7PT — Cheshire West and Chester — Appeal Decision As set out above, the other considerations put forward in support of the proposal attract moderate weight therefore they do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. 24. For this reason, the proposal fails to comply with Policy STRAT9 of the LP1 and Policy DM21 of the LP2, along with the aims of protecting the Green Belt as set out in the Framework. Conclusion 25. The proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole, and there are no material considerations worthy of sufficient weight that would indicate a decision other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

Romany, Plough Lane, Christleton, Cheshire, CH3 7PT — Cheshire West and Chester — H Ellison INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4