Two storey side extension with new porch to front

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 September 2017 by G Powys Jones MSc FRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 11 October 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/D3640/D/17/3175607 Chartwood, Bagshot Road, Chobham, Woking, Surrey, GU24 8SJ  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 Nick Skundric against the decision of Surrey Heath Borough Council.  The application Ref 16/1078, dated 16 November 2016, was refused by notice dated 21 April 2017.  The development proposed is two storey side extension with new porch to front. Outbuilding to be demolished and replaced with new. Decision 1. The appeal in respect of the two storey side extension with new porch to front is dismissed, but the appeal is allowed in part and planning permission is granted for a new outbuilding at Chartwood, Bagshot Road, Chobham, Woking, Surrey, GU24 8SJ in accordance with the terms of the application Ref 16/1078, dated 16 November 2016, subject to the condition that the outbuilding hereby permitted shall be completed in accordance with the following approved plans: Drawing Nos 251_SL/02; 251_S4/09 & 251_S4/11. Preliminary and procedural matters 2. The proposals comprise two distinct elements, being an extension to the dwelling and the erection of an outbuilding in its garden respectively. They shall be dealt with separately. 3. With regard to the outbuilding, this was originally justified on the basis that it would replace existing garden buildings. However, I saw that the existing buildings referred to in the representations had been demolished and removed, and that the floor slab of the proposed outbuilding has been laid. 4. In the circumstances I shall deal with this aspect of the appeal on the basis that the appellant wishes to retain that part of the outbuilding already built, and to complete it in accordance with the submitted plans. 5. Reference is made in the appellant’s ground of appeal to policies G5, RE2 and RE5, without clarification as to their derivation. On enquiry, the appellant’s agent clarified that they were drawn from The Surrey Heath Local Plan 2000. However, the three policies have been superseded, and are no longer part of the development plan. 6. The appeal property is situated within the designated Green Belt (GB). Appeal Decision APP/D3640/D/17/3175607 2 Main issues 7. The main issues are: - Whether the proposed development is inappropriate or not inappropriate development in the GB in the terms of local development plan policy and national policy, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), - The effect on openness, character and appearance - If it is inappropriate development, whether the harm caused by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development Reasons Inappropriate or not inappropriate (i) the extension 8. The Framework, at paragraph 89, says that a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the GB. However, exceptions to this general principle include 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. 9. No empirical guidance is provided in the Framework in respect of the term ‘disproportionate addition’. In my experience, decision-makers commonly use a variety of yardsticks to assess the acceptability of extensions in the GB, including footprint, floorspace and volume measurements. In some circumstances, subjective assessments are made. 10. The Council does not rely on any development plan policy in its sole reason for refusal, but bases its decision on the contents of the Framework. 11. The term ‘original building’ is defined in the Framework as ‘a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was built originally.’ 12. Neither of the parties has provided a precise date as to when the original dwelling was built, but the undisputed planning history shows that permission has been granted for several extensions and additions to the dwelling since 1950. 13. According to the Council’s calculations, which are not seriously disputed by the appellant, the dwelling’s floorspace has been increased over the years by approximately 82%, whilst its volume has increased by 69%. Were the current proposals permitted, the increase in floorspace, allowing for demolitions, would amount to around a 118% increase over the original whilst the volume would be some 90%. 14. The extensions/additions already carried out to the original dwelling have clearly increased its floorspace, bulk and volume. The current proposal would further increase floorspace, bulk and volume to the extent that the cumulative effect of the past and proposed extensions/additions, in combination, lead me to find that this further extension would amount to a disproportionate addition. Appeal Decision APP/D3640/D/17/3175607 3 15. Accordingly, having regard to the provisions of local and national policy, I conclude that the proposed extension would amount to inappropriate development in the GB, which, by definition, is harmful, and this carries substantial weight against the development. (ii) the outbuilding 16. With regard to the proposed outbuilding, I note the original intention to demolish existing outbuildings. The proposed outbuilding could therefore be regarded as a replacement building. Paragraph 89 of the Framework provides, as an exception to the general policy of restraint on new building in the GB, that the replacement of a building is not unacceptable, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. 17. The new outbuilding would be of the same use as the buildings replaced, that is, it would be used as ancillary to the main residential use of the appeal property. In addition, although higher, it would not be materially larger than the outbuildings replaced. Accordingly, although the appellant has acted prematurely in his demolition activities, I consider the proposed outbuilding to comprise not inappropriate development in the GB. I note that the Council did not object to the replacement outbuilding. Openness character & appearance 18. The existing single storey wing protruding from the dwelling’s eastern flank would be demolished and replaced by a two-storey addition, with its extended roofline matching that of the highest part of the existing dwelling. The front elevation would be remodelled with a fresh pattern of fenestration including the insertion of roof dormers. A large, albeit proportionate porch feature would be added. 19. The proposals represent a substantial extension that would have some effect on the openness of the GB. However, the dwelling is set well back from the main road outside (A319), and is separated from it by a high, luxuriant hedge that effectively screens the dwelling from the view of passing motorists and pedestrians from directly outside. 20. In oblique views along the road, those approaching from the west could not readily see the extension. Because of the presence of trees and vegetation on the plot’s eastern boundary, the extension would be barely glimpsed when approaching from the east, and since it would be so set back in the plot, it would not prove particularly noticeable. 21. Thus the extension’s visual impact on its surroundings would be minimal, and it follows, to my mind, that the perceived impact on the GB’s openness would be slight, and not such as could reasonably be considered to be harmful. This factor does not therefore weigh heavily against the scheme. 22. The Council says that ‘…it is not considered that the proposed development would result in any adverse impact on the architectural character of the surrounding area.’ I share that view, since the extension and the remodelled front elevation are well designed. 23. I find the outbuilding to be of an acceptable, attractive design. Its slight effect on openness is consistent with that normally and reasonably expected of development that is not inappropriate in the GB. Appeal Decision APP/D3640/D/17/3175607 4 Other considerations 24. The appellant considers that account should be taken of the permitted development rights alleged to be available to the appellant. It does not form part of my duties to determine whether or not another extension, of the size described by the appellant, could be added to the dwelling without the need for planning permission. 25. In order to take such a prospect into account as a material consideration of weight I would need clear and unambiguous evidence, probably in the form of a Certificate of Lawfulness (LDC), that this was indeed the case. No such LDC has been produced, and the appellant’s argument in this respect accordingly carries no weight. Planning balance and overall conclusions 26. With regard to the proposed extension, the harm I have identified as a consequence of the inappropriateness of the development in the GB carries substantial weight against the proposals. 27. The slight perceived loss of openness to the GB involved attracts little weight against the scheme. 28. The acceptable design of the scheme and its not unacceptable impact on the character of its surroundings attracts moderate weight in favour. 29. The other considerations raised by the appellant in respect of permitted development carry no weight in favour of the proposal. 30. The harm caused by the extension by reason of inappropriateness and loss of openness clearly outweighs any advantages of the proposal. Accordingly, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist, and the appeal fails in this respect. 31. As to the outbuilding, my positive conclusions are set out in paragraphs 16, 17 & 22 of this decision letter. Since the proposed outbuilding and extension are clearly separable and could be independently implemented, I find that I am able to issue a split decision. 32. Accordingly, the appeal in respect of the proposed extension fails, whereas the appeal in respect of the outbuilding is allowed. That permission is conditional, in the interests of certainty, on the outbuilding being completed in accordance with the approved plans. G Powys Jones INSPECTOR