Two storey rear extension, following the demolition of an existing toilet, boiler room and covered area

Appeal Decisions Site visit made on 16 October 2017 by Chris Couper BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 29th November 2017 Appeal A Ref: APP/Y3615/D/17/3178141 Green Dene Cottage, Honeysuckle Bottom, East Horsley KT24 5TD  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 Richard Wadey against the decision of Guildford Borough Council.  The application Ref 16/P/01794, dated 19 August 2016, was refused by notice dated 30 March 2017.  The development proposed is a two storey rear extension, following the demolition of an existing toilet, boiler room and covered area. Appeal B Ref: APP/Y3615/D/17/3184204 Green Dene Cottage, Honeysuckle Bottom, East Horsley KT24 5TD  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 and Mrs Wadey against the decision of Guildford Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/P/01408, dated 29 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 31 August 2017.  The development proposed is the erection of a two storey rear extension and the demolition of an outbuilding. Decision 1. Appeal A is dismissed and Appeal B is dismissed. Procedural matter 2. As set out above there are two appeals on this site. They differ in regards to the design, form, appearance and proportions of the proposed development; and the existing structures to be demolished. I have considered each proposal on its individual merits. However, to avoid duplication, I have dealt with the two schemes together, except where otherwise indicated. Main Issues 3. The main issues are:  Whether the proposals would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies;  The effect of the proposals on the openness of the Green Belt; Appeal Decisions APP/Y3615/D/17/3178141, APP/Y3615/D/17/3184204 2  With regards Appeal A only, the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property; and  If the proposals are inappropriate, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, such as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Reasons Whether or not inappropriate development in the Green Belt 4. The National Planning Policy Framework (‘Framework’) sets out that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. At paragraph 89 it regards the construction of new buildings as inappropriate unless, amongst other things, it is 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. 5. Policy RE2 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (‘LP’) lists ‘limited extensions’ or alterations to ‘existing dwellings’ as a form of development that is not inappropriate. Although that approach is not wholly consistent with the Framework, LP Policy H9 sets out a presumption against extensions to dwellings in the Green Belt which result in disproportionate additions taking into account the size of the original dwelling. Consequently, although the LP pre-dates the Framework, and there are slight differences in its approach, taken together the thrust of these two LP policies broadly reflects the Framework, and I give them substantial weight in my decision. 6. Both the Framework and the LP define the original building as the building as existed on 1 July 1948 (or as first built if after that date), and the LP includes domestic outbuildings within that definition. Neither sets out what may constitute a disproportionate addition, although LP paragraph 5.40 is clear that garages or domestic outbuildings which are incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling will be considered as extensions. 7. Green Dene Cottage is a two storey dwelling which sits on a very spacious plot. To the rear it has a low eaves line, and three dormers in its long sloping roof. The Council and appellant agree that those dormers are additions to the original dwelling, which have increased its floor area from 137.65sqm to 167.65sqm. 8. There are also two significant outbuildings within the plot – an annex, partly with two floors, which the appellants describe as ancillary; and a single storey garage. According to the submitted block plans those structures have a floor area of 61.4sqm and 68.36sqm respectively. Both have a close visual association with the dwelling and are linked to it by parking and accesses. The Council, considers both to post-date 1 July 1948, but states in its officer reports that it would be for the appellant to demonstrate if they consider them to be part of the original dwellinghouse. 9. I observed that the garage walls are constructed in a variety of materials including brick and blockwork and it has a corrugated roof. Whilst the two storey section of the annex is of a more traditional appearance, which reflects some of the materials used in the dwelling, the appellant has not submitted Appeal Decisions APP/Y3615/D/17/3178141, APP/Y3615/D/17/3184204 3 any evidence to indicate that either existed on 1 July 1948. Consequently, on the basis of the limited evidence before me, I consider that both the annex and the garage are additions to the original building. 10. Both appeal schemes would include the demolition of a small single storey WC and an open canopy. As a result, in the case of Appeal A, the parties agree that the dwelling’s floor area would be increased to 202.48sqm, which would amount to a 46.5% increase on the original dwelling’s floor area. The proposed extension would be set down into the ground, and it would be lower than the existing dwelling’s ridge. However, it would have a two storey form, would cover well over half the dwelling’s rear elevation, and would have a significantly greater eaves height than that part of the dwelling to which it would attach. 11. Consequently, it would have a significant bulk, and even if the outbuildings are not included in the calculation, it would result in a disproportionate addition. As I have found that the outbuildings should be included as additions to the original building, the cumulative impact with that development would be even greater. 12. Turning to Appeal B, the parties agree that the resultant dwelling would have a floor area of approx. 242.07sqm (which the Council states would be a 75.8% uplift from its original floor area). However, unlike Appeal A, the proposal includes the demolition of the existing garage. As a result, the appellants maintain that the net increase in the original floor area would be just 36.06sqm (or 27%). 13. The appellants state that, for both schemes, the enlargement would be less than 47% of the existing build volume, and therefore within the quantum increase generally considered acceptable in the Borough. However, I have found, from the limited available evidence, that the garage and the annex should be treated as additions to the original building. Although in Appeal B the garage would be demolished, given the retained annex’s size and scale, having regard to the cumulative impact of development, that scheme would also result in a disproportionate addition to the original building. 14. Summing up on this issue, considered separately, both appeals would result in a disproportionate addition to the original building, and would therefore conflict with the Framework and with LP Policies RE2 and H9. The openness of the Green Belt 15. Both the proposed extensions would be located to the rear of the dwelling, which is in a secluded location, adjacent to a lane, at the bottom of a wooded valley. However, irrespective of the large plot size, both schemes would significantly increase the dwelling’s rearward projection at ground and first floor level. Both would thereby significantly increase the dwelling’s footprint and mass. 16. Although Appeal B would include the demolition of the garage, that structure is single storey, with a low and shallow-pitched roof, and it is set into rising ground to the rear. Consequently, although the appellant maintains that the increase in plan area as a result of this scheme would be just 6%, there would be a net harmful impact on the area’s openness. Appeal Decisions APP/Y3615/D/17/3178141, APP/Y3615/D/17/3184204 4 17. Given both scheme’s siting and the well-landscaped location, neither extension’s full size would be perceptible from public viewpoints, although their not inconsiderable flanks would nevertheless be visible from the lane. 18. I have had regard to the appellant’s reference at page 19 of his Appeal B statement to a High Court ruling. Whilst I understand that that case in the Green Belt in Rotherham involved a space increase of 80%, I do not have the full details. In any event, my findings do not conflict with the approach there, and in the cited ‘Turner case’, that the concept of openness should not be narrowly limited to a volumetric increase, and that visual impact should also be a factor. 19. Summing up on this issue, as a result of their significant built form, both schemes would cause moderate harm to the Green Belt’s openness; and would thereby conflict with one of its essential characteristics. Consequently, both Appeal A and Appeal B would conflict with the Framework and with LP Policies H9 and RE2. The harm caused on this issue adds to the harm that I have found by reason of inappropriateness. Character and appearance 20. The existing rear dormers’ bulk are broken up by their series of steeply pitched roofs, they are set in from the roof’s edges, and are appropriately finished in a mix of timber and slate. Consequently, although their style is somewhat at odds with the rest of the dwelling’s simple form and appearance, they do not jar conspicuously. The low, largely open canopy has very a limited visual impact and its design is not incongruous. 21. The proposed extension in Appeal A would be set down into the ground. However, its window and door openings would not align with the height of those in the existing dwelling. Furthermore, there would be a step up to its first floor eaves, and a rather awkward and contrived junction at roof level. Notwithstanding the appropriate use of matching materials, that would give the extension a rather detached and disjointed relationship with the host. As a result of this scheme Green Dene Cottage would have a rather eclectic and complex form, and its relatively simple character and appearance would be significantly harmed. 22. Although the scale and mass of both appeals would cause harm to the Green Belt’s openness, Appeal B’s sympathetic design and simpler form would not harm the host property’s appearance. However, for the reasons above, on this matter, Appeal A would conflict with those parts of LP Policies H9 and G5 which require development not to have an unacceptable effect on the scale and character of the dwelling, and to enhance the built environment through good design. It would also conflict with the Framework’s similar requirement for good design. Other considerations 23. Both schemes would be appropriately finished with flint infill and brick quoins, locally sourced timber, and a slate roof. Appeal B would broadly respect the local rural vernacular. However, as I have found that the existing dormers do not significantly jar, their removal and replacement in Appeal B would constitute only a modest design enhancement. Similarly, whilst the garage is rather dilapidated and crudely constructed, it is set into the hillside, has a low Appeal Decisions APP/Y3615/D/17/3178141, APP/Y3615/D/17/3184204 5 height, and is relatively inconspicuous. As a result, the visual and design benefits to the local scene as a result of its removal in Appeal B would be limited. 24. My attention has been drawn to another ‘Lovelace’ cottage at The Hermitage close by, which was built at the same time as Green Dene Cottage, and is in a comparable location. However, although I observed that it appears to have been significantly extended, I have only limited details of its planning history, and that development does not alter my conclusions regarding the impact of these two schemes. Other matters 25. The site is within an area of woodland with scattered dwellings of varied proportions, often on large plots. This is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (‘AONB’), where the Framework gives great weight to conserving landscape and scenic beauty. However, although I have considered the AONB Planning Adviser’s objection to Appeal B, I have found that its design would be acceptable. Both schemes would preserve the dwelling’s modestly- proportioned, largely unaltered front face, and I agree with the Council that neither would harm the Area of Great Landscape Value, and that the AONB’s landscape and scenic beauty would be conserved. 26. Both schemes were prepared following pre-application officer advice, and the appellants express surprise and dissatisfaction at the Council’s decisions. However, although they state that its approach has been inconsistent with that advice, and with decisions elsewhere in the Borough, I have dealt with the proposals before me on their merits and having regard to relevant planning policies. Green Belt Balance and Conclusions 27. Individually, both Appeal A and Appeal B would result in a disproportionate addition to the original building, and would thereby constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Both would also harm its openness. In accordance with the Framework those are matters to which I give substantial weight. Additionally, Appeal A would significantly harm the character and appearance of the host property. 28. In its favour, Appeal B would result in limited design benefits to the host property. I also note that Appeal A attracted a letter of support from a neighbour. 29. However, for the above reasons, I find that for both appeals the other considerations do not clearly outweigh the totality of the harm that I have identified, and that the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not therefore exist. Both schemes would conflict with the development plan when considered as a whole, and with the Framework. For those reasons, and having regard to all other matters raised, both Appeals A and B are dismissed. Chris Couper INSPECTOR