Our redevelopment of a rescue kennels in the Nottinghamshire green belt to five houses won the approval of an Inspector who found 'very special circumstances' in the removal of unsightly buildings and an unneighbourly use.
The Broxtowe Borough Council Planning Committee voted to refuse the application on 7th July 2021 against the officer’s recommendation.
The planning officer had stated in his report that “the proposal is in accordance with the policies set out in the Council’s Local Plan and the NPPF. It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable, and that planning permission should be granted.”
The NPPF allows for the "limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development."
The application originally sought to obtain permission for the construction of six dwellings, however, the officer requested that one of the units to the north-west of the site was removed following comments he had received from the ward councillor. As such, revised plans were submitted and the description of the development was amended to reflect the new proposal for five dwellings.
As regards openness, the proposal was assessed both visually and spatially. Not only did it offer a reduction in built volume and footprint, but the application was supported by a visual impact assessment which concluded that the proposed change was minimal and therefore the impact, from a landscape and visual impact perspective, was negligible/minor i.e., barely perceptible.
No evidence had been provided by the Council to contradict the findings of the LVIA, or to contradict the professional judgement of the planning department. Thus, and in line with the comments of the case officer, we contended that the development would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt.
The Inspector, however, considered the greater two-storey height of the replacement buildings, albeit over a smaller footprint, would lead to some modest visual harm to the openness of the green belt. He did not consider domestic paraphernalia within defined curtilages would have a greater impact, given the extent of buildings and hard surfaces to be removed.
In a finely balanced decision, the Inspector concluded, due to the impact on openness, the proposal represented inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Notwithstanding this, he gave substantial weight to a significant improvement in the character and appearance of this site within the countryside when considered against the potential for a commercial kennel operator to take up the site without the need for planning permission and continue an unneighbourly use. Finding very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development in the green belt, he allowed the appeal.