Cranford House, Boundary Road, Taplow, Buckinghamshire, SL6 0EZ

Cranford House, Boundary Road, Taplow, Buckinghamshire, SL6 0EZ — Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area * — Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 June 2023 by G Dring BA (Hons) MA MRTPI MAUDE an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 20th July 2023 Appeal Ref: APP/N0410/W/22/3309681 Cranford House, Boundary Road, Taplow, Buckinghamshire SL6 0EZ • 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 & Mrs D & J Schindler against the decision of Buckinghamshire Council. • The application Ref PL/22/1931/FA, dated 27 May 2022, was refused by notice dated 16 August 2022. • The development proposed is demolition of coach house and residential outbuildings and erection of dwellinghouse. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development was amended during the course of the application. I have used the amended description when making my decision. 3. A Unilateral Undertaking (UU) was submitted with the appeal. This UU sought to secure a financial contribution as required by the Strategic Access Managements and Monitoring Strategy.

Cranford House, Boundary Road, Taplow, Buckinghamshire, SL6 0EZ — Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area * — Appeal Decision The financial contribution set out in the UU relates to mitigation measures required in relation to the Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation (SAC), a site protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the Habitats Regulations). Whilst I note the appellant has confirmed that the financial contribution has been paid, the UU relates to a previous planning permission at the appeal site for the conversion and extension of the Coach House and there is no mechanism before me to amend the UU so that it would be associated with the current appeal proposal. As a result, I am unable to take this into account in this appeal. Main Issues 4. The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Cranford House, Boundary Road, Taplow, Buckinghamshire, SL6 0EZ — Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area * — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/22/3309681 Reasons Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development 5. Paragraph 149 of the Framework makes it clear that new buildings are inappropriate in the Green Belt, subject to a number of exceptions. One of the exceptions is the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces, identified at paragraph 149 d) of the Framework. The buildings identified as being demolished to make way for the new dwelling are ancillary or incidental outbuildings to Cranford House and do not form an independent dwelling currently. 6. The proposal is for an independent dwelling. The appellant accepts that it would constitute the replacement of a building that is not in the same use as the existing building. Therefore, an exception under paragraph 149 d) of the Framework would not apply in this case. For the same reason Policy GB11 of the South Bucks District Local Plan Adopted March 1999 Consolidated September 2007 and February 2011 (LP) is not relevant to this case due to it referring to the rebuilding of existing habitable dwellings in the Green Belt. 7.

Cranford House, Boundary Road, Taplow, Buckinghamshire, SL6 0EZ — Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area * — Appeal Decision The appellant asserts that the proposal would also fall under paragraph 149 g) of the Framework which refers to limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, where redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings) subject to further criteria relating to openness. 8. The appeal site is formed of garden area associated with Cranford House. Gardens that are not in built-up areas are considered to be previously developed land under the definition provided within the Framework. Whilst there are dwellings and built form adjacent to the appeal site that front onto Boundary Road and Hillmead Court, the land surrounding the small pocket of development in which the appeal site sits is open to all sides and the surroundings are agricultural in character. Therefore, I consider that the garden area is previously developed land. 9. On the basis that the proposal would constitute the partial redevelopment of the garden, to fall within exception paragraph 149 g) of the Framework, the proposal must also not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development. 10.

Cranford House, Boundary Road, Taplow, Buckinghamshire, SL6 0EZ — Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area * — Appeal Decision The proposal would see the removal of the Coach House and the existing garage from within the red line site boundary. An existing store building from the retained garden of Cranford House would also be removed. In the case of Tandridge DC v SSCLG & Syrett [2015] EWHC 2503 the court held that there is no reason in principle why the objectives of Green Belt policy cannot be met by the application of the exception to a group of buildings as opposed to a single building. 11. However, the proposal would introduce built form onto what is currently open land and this part of the garden would not be open in any equivalent or comparative sense to the existing condition. Whilst I acknowledge that a significant proportion of the proposed floor space would be located in a basement, the proposal would still result in a greater footprint and extent of built form above ground level when compared with the existing Coach House, https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Cranford House, Boundary Road, Taplow, Buckinghamshire, SL6 0EZ — Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area * — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/22/3309681 garage and store that would be removed. As such, the proposal would spatially erode the openness of the Green Belt. 12. The appeal site is largely screened from view due to mature trees and vegetation around the significant majority of the boundary. Due to the proposed height of the dwelling, its position and the mature screening in place, there would be limited public views of it. Views from the neighbouring dwellings and associated garden areas would also be limited for the same reasons, although there would be the potential for more views of the roof of the proposed dwelling from neighbouring garden areas, particularly in the winter when there would be less leaf cover. Therefore, there would be some visual impact on the openness of the Green Belt although I accept that it would be limited. 13. Due to the effect on spatial and visual openness, the proposal would have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and it would not accord with paragraph 149 g) of the Framework. 14. The proposal would therefore be inappropriate development within the Green Belt.

Cranford House, Boundary Road, Taplow, Buckinghamshire, SL6 0EZ — Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area * — Appeal Decision This would be harmful to the Green Belt, which in accordance with paragraph 148 of the Framework, should be given substantial weight. In this regard, the proposal would also be contrary to Policy GB1 of the LP. This policy seeks, amongst other things, to control development in the Green Belt. 15. Policy GB3 of the LP is also cited by the Council in its first reason for refusal however it relates to the replacement of existing dwellings and limited infilling within the boundaries of the Green Belt settlements, neither of which are directly relevant to the proposal. Other considerations 16. In the case of Mansell v Tonbridge & Malling BC [2017] EWCA Civ 1314 the court found that a fallback position can be a material planning consideration provided it is a clear possibility. The appellant has provided evidence of a sequence of fallback positions which include three elements. The first element of the fallback position is an extant planning permission granted on 29 April 2022 to convert and extend the Coach House to provide a dwelling.

Cranford House, Boundary Road, Taplow, Buckinghamshire, SL6 0EZ — Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area * — Appeal Decision The second element includes a lawful development certificate dated 29 July 2016 which states that a detached outbuilding would have been lawful within the meaning of Section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). The third element includes the removal of a garage from the appeal site and an existing store building from the retained garden of Cranford House. 17. The Council identified the Coach House as a non-designated heritage asset during the assessment of the application, a matter disputed by the appellant. Whilst I accept that the building has been altered, in my view based on the original historical links to Cranford House and the built form arrangement and appearance there does appear to be some merit in considering the building as a non-designated heritage asset. However due to the extent of the alterations already carried out to the building, the significance of the building as a non- designated heritage asset would be somewhat limited. 18. Paragraph 203 of the Framework states that in weighing applications that directly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Cranford House, Boundary Road, Taplow, Buckinghamshire, SL6 0EZ — Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area * — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/22/3309681 required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. 19. The Council have confirmed that the loss of the non-designated heritage asset was not included as a reason for refusal because they accept that significant works would be undertaken as part of the approved conversion and extension scheme which would significantly erode any detailing that is currently present. The Council also confirmed that it found evidence of substantial cracking which it presumes would lead to a large proportion of the building having to be rebuilt or strengthened. 20. Based on the evidence before me I consider the loss of the non-designated heritage asset would be acceptable in this case, given the limited significance it has due to the extent of the alterations it has undergone already and the fallback position in place, which would further erode any significant character or detail. 21. Whilst the appellant has provided information about the commencement of the detached outbuilding for Building Control purposes, I did not witness any sign of the commencement of works on site.

Cranford House, Boundary Road, Taplow, Buckinghamshire, SL6 0EZ — Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area * — Appeal Decision No Lawful Development Certificate has been provided to show that development of the outbuilding could be completed. On that basis, I can’t be certain that it would be possible to construct the outbuilding, or that it would be constructed were I to dismiss the appeal. Nevertheless, I will take into account that it may be possible to complete this outbuilding. 22. The appellant suggests that an overall fallback position comprises the removal of the Coach House, garage and store building, and that the detached outbuilding and extension to the Coach House would not be constructed. On that basis, they assert that the proposal would result in a smaller floor area above ground level when comparing it to the combined floor area of the garage and store building that would be removed and the fallback position of the conversion and extension of the Coach House and the detached outbuilding. 23. The existing Coach House comprises two storeys. The approved extension to the Coach House would be single storey. The detached outbuilding would be single storey. The other buildings that would be removed are also single storey. The single storey buildings both existing and proposed would have limited roof heights.

Cranford House, Boundary Road, Taplow, Buckinghamshire, SL6 0EZ — Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area * — Appeal Decision The existing and proposed buildings that form the overall fallback position would have less impact in terms of their scale, bulk and massing compared to the proposal which would be a large single storey building with substantial roof and basement. 24. Therefore, regardless of the floorspace calculations and overall ridge heights provided by both parties, the siting, overall bulk and massing of the proposal above ground level and in particular the design of the roof would result in built form which has a greater spatial and visual impact than the existing buildings or overall fallback position. 25. The appellant has stated that the proposal would have the highest standards of sustainability to minimise energy and water use due to it being a new build rather than a conversion scheme. However, limited evidence has been provided to demonstrate this and therefore I attribute minimal weight to this consideration. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 4

Cranford House, Boundary Road, Taplow, Buckinghamshire, SL6 0EZ — Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area * — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/22/3309681 26. I noted the presence of a timber dog kennel adjacent to the existing garage and acknowledge that the appellant states that other outbuildings could be erected on the site under permitted development rights. However, the information provided on any other intended outbuildings is not provided. I have little information on the likelihood of this occurring. I therefore attribute limited weight to this consideration. 27. The appellant asserts that the proposal complies with design policy requirements, would not adversely affect the amenities of neighbouring dwellings, would provide appropriate garden space, access and parking provision and that ecological considerations could be dealt with by condition. A lack of harm in respect of these considerations is neutral and does not weigh in favour of or against the proposal. 28. My attention has been drawn to other appeal decisions and planning permissions by the appellant. I recognise that there are instances when the consolidation of built form can be beneficial, but as stated above I do not consider it so in this case. 29.

Cranford House, Boundary Road, Taplow, Buckinghamshire, SL6 0EZ — Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area * — Appeal Decision The appeal decision at Silverwood1 and the planning permissions granted by the Council at Oakdene2 and Abbots Lea3 relate to schemes for replacement dwellings, which are materially different to this case. Full details of the existing buildings and fallback positions on these other sites are not provided and therefore I am not able to make a full comparison. The discussion around the effect of basements on the openness of the Green Belt and the use of lightwells in the examples are also noted. However, I have found that the amount of built form above ground level would constitute a greater impact on openness than existing and approved development in this case. The examples provided are therefore not directly comparable and I have assessed the appeal on its individual merits. Other Matters 30. The Council indicate that the appeal site lies within 5.6km of the Burnham Beeches Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and this is not disputed by the appellant. The SAC is a European Site protected under the Habitats Regulations.

Cranford House, Boundary Road, Taplow, Buckinghamshire, SL6 0EZ — Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area * — Appeal Decision The ancient pollarded beech and oak trees are the main features of importance for nature conservation because of the quantity and quality of the decaying wood habitat found within them and the species that are associated with this increasingly rare habitat. Given the distance of the proposal from the SAC, and the proposed use, the proposal is likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the SAC, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects. This is due to a potential increase in recreational activity on the SAC. 31. If I were to allow the appeal, I would need to carry out an appropriate assessment. I will return to that once I have undertaken a Green Belt balancing exercise, should it be necessary. 1 APP/N0410/W/21/3284363 2 Council Reference: PL/20/0693/FA 3 Council Reference: PL/21/4858/FA https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5

Cranford House, Boundary Road, Taplow, Buckinghamshire, SL6 0EZ — Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area * — Appeal Decision Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/22/3309681 Green Belt Balance 32. The proposal comprises a building that would not fall within any of the exceptions to inappropriate development in the Green Belt according to the Framework. The Framework establishes that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt and that development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations. 33. Other considerations in this case include the three elements of the overall fallback position made up of the conversion and extension of the existing Coach House, the provision of a detached outbuilding and the removal of the existing garage and store building. I have also considered the potential for other outbuildings to be provided under permitted development rights along with the consolidation of built form and the minimisation of energy and water use in new build development compared with a conversion scheme.

Cranford House, Boundary Road, Taplow, Buckinghamshire, SL6 0EZ — Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area * — Appeal Decision A lack of harm in respect of considerations relating to ecology, the design of the dwelling, the effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of neighbouring dwellings and the provision of appropriate levels of garden space, parking and access have also been raised. 34. I find that the other considerations in this case, either individually or cumulatively, do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development in the Green Belt do not exist. Therefore, the proposal conflicts with paragraphs 147, 148 and 149 of the Framework. 35. If I had been minded to allow the appeal, it would have been necessary for me to complete an appropriate assessment under the requirements of the Habitats Regulations. However, I have already identified harm to the Green Belt, such that undertaking an appropriate assessment would not alter the outcome of the appeal. On that basis, there is no need to examine this matter further for the purposes of making my decision. Conclusion 36. The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and with the Framework.

Cranford House, Boundary Road, Taplow, Buckinghamshire, SL6 0EZ — Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area * — Appeal Decision There are no material considerations to suggest the decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal is dismissed.

Cranford House, Boundary Road, Taplow, Buckinghamshire, SL6 0EZ — Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area * — G Dring INSPECTOR https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 6