Single storey extension to the studio

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 December 2017 by Timothy C King BA(Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 15 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/C3620/D/17/3184810 The Studio, Hatchetts End, Hogspudding Lane, Newdigate RH5 5DR  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 Nathan Ramsden against the decision of Mole Valley District Council.  The application Ref MO/2017/0591/PLAH, dated 3 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 30 June 2017.  The development proposed is a single storey extension to the studio. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey extension to the studio building at Hatchetts End, Hogspudding Lane, Newdigate RH5 5DR, in accordance with the terms of the application Ref MO/2017/0591/PLAH, dated 3 April 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan, Site Plan, 1639.12, 1639.13, 1639.14 and 1639.15. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Application for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Mr & Mrs Nathan Ramsden against Mole Valley District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision. Main Issues 3. The site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt and the main issues in this case are: i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); ii) the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; Appeal Decision APP/C3620/D/17/3184810 2 iii)the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing building and its surrounding area; iv) if it is inappropriate development whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness and by reason of any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Reasons Whether the proposal is inappropriate development 4. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), issued in 2012, indicates that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Such development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 5. The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. All development is inappropriate unless, in the case of any new building constructed, it falls within one of the exceptions referred to in paragraph 89 of the Framework. This includes 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. 6. The Framework provides no clear guidance over what may, or may not, amount to disproportionate additions. Similarly, Policy RUD7 of the Mole Valley Local Plan (LP), adopted in 2000, although mentioning that extensions to dwellings will be permitted where they would not result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original dwelling (or as it stood in December 1968 when policies seeking to control the extension and rebuilding of dwellings in the Green Belt were first introduced), gives no figure or percentage to gauge as such. 7. The Studio is a small, detached, single storey building comprising self-contained residential accommodation. It is used as an extension to the habitable floorspace within the main dwelling, Hatchetts End. The proposal would involve projecting the building’s north facing elevation. 8. In terms of the cumulative increase in floorspace the Council and the appellants have arrived at significantly different figures. This is due to the Council including the existing internal floor area comprising a kitchen and bathroom, which sits forward of the north facing lounge window to the side. However, in taking 1968 as the base point I have had regard to an appendix attached to the appellants’ statement of case which comprises a HM Land Registry Plan stamped and dated 11/66 which clearly indicates the building’s staggered north elevation. 9. This reinforces the findings from my site visit whereby I noted that the brickwork and roof tiles of the building’s projection tend to match the main part of the building which is of some age and certainly not post-war. The only noticeable ‘addition’ to the building, clearly constructed relatively recently, is a very limited add-on structure to its east elevation, which accommodates a small hall area. Appeal Decision APP/C3620/D/17/3184810 3 10. On the above basis I cannot agree with the text in the Council’s case report which comments that a lean-to addition to the north of the original building, from its appearance, the difference in brickwork and roof form is considered to be a later addition. I found that the brickwork was not discernibly different, that its aged catslide roof blends in with the main roof plane behind, and that its appearance and presence on the Land Registry constitutes evidence that, on the balance of probabilities, this section of the building pre-dates 1968. Accordingly, it should be discounted from the calculation to establish the cumulative increase and, instead, should represent part of the ‘original’ building. 11. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that the only extension to the building to date is the small hallway projection mentioned. The appellant has calculated this to measure approximately 8 sqm but, nonetheless, the submitted plans show that this addition would be removed as part of the scheme. I thereby estimate that the cumulative increase in floorspace arising from the proposal would be in the region of some 47% over that of the original building. This is more than the appellant’s calculation of approximately 30 sqm, but significantly less than the Council’s calculation of 103%. 12. Although I accept that the percentage increase is not insignificant I am also guided by the explanatory wording to LP Policy RUD7 which mentions that, when assessing whether an extension would be disproportionate, account will be taken of the relative increase in floorspace and also whether the proposal would be out of proportion with the original dwelling in terms of its form, bulk or prominence. In this particular instance the appearance of the building’s frontage, although slightly widened, would undergo little alteration, the main roof’s ridgeline would not be raised and the addition to the rear of the building would be to a sympathetic design. This, coupled with the proposed roof treatment to the rear whereby the two gables would be just below ridge height, would ensure that the extension would integrate satisfactorily and also, despite the increase in depth, with a degree of subordination. 13. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not represent a disproportionate addition to the original building, and the proposal would thereby not fall contrary to paragraph 89 of the Framework or LP Policy RUD7. Accordingly, it would not constitute inappropriate development within the Green Belt for the purposes of the Framework. The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt 14. Given that I have found that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt I conclude, on this main issue, that the proposed extension would not be potentially harmful to the Green Belt’s openness and would not thereby conflict with advice within the Framework or the design objectives of Policy CS14 of the Council’s Core Strategy (CS). Character and appearance 15. I have found that the proposed rear extension to the building would integrate satisfactorily with the host building in terms of form and size. Indeed, the development would involve the removal of the incongruous modern addition to the building’s eastern flank. Moreover, the extension would not be visible from the front and there would be little, if any, indication of change. I conclude that the proposal, in its contextual setting, would not be harmful to the character Appeal Decision APP/C3620/D/17/3184810 4 and appearance of the existing building nor its rural surroundings, and there would be no material conflict with the design objectives of either CS Policy CS14 or LP Policy ENV22. Very special circumstances 16. Given that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the Framework the issue of Very Special Circumstances is not relevant to this appeal and I have no need to consider this matter further. Conclusion and Conditions 17. The proposal would neither represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt nor would it be harmful to local character and appearance. For the above reasons, and having had regard to all matters raised, the appeal succeeds. 18. In terms of conditions, apart from the statutory time limit, in the interests of certainty I impose a condition requiring that the proposed enlarged porch is implemented in accordance with the approved plans. Also, to ensure a satisfactory appearance, a condition requiring the use of matching materials is necessary. Timothy C King INSPECTOR