Erection of a first-floor extension to provide an additional bedroom and bathroom facilities; reconfiguration of ground and first floor plans; erection of new porch entrance to north main entrance

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 March 2018 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/R3650/D/17/3191618 Abingerwood, Holmbury Road, Ewhurst, Cranleigh, GU6 7SJ  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 Dr & Mrs Forrest against the decision of Waverley Borough Council.  The application Ref WA/2017/1382, dated 19 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 4 October 2017.  The development proposed is the erection of a first-floor extension to provide an additional bedroom and bathroom facilities; reconfiguration of ground and first floor plans; erection of new porch entrance to north main entrance. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. 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;  The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt;  The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area; and  If it is inappropriate development, whether the harm 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 Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt 3. The appeal site lies within the Green Belt. The Framework explicitly states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and that Appeal Decision APP/R3650/D/17/3191618 2 a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt. However, the Framework goes on to state that the extension of an existing building is not inappropriate if it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 4. The Waverley Borough Local Plan 2002 (LP) pre-dates the Framework. Nevertheless, the broad aim of LP Policy C1 – Development in the Green Belt Outside Settlements is consistent with the Framework, as is Policy RD2 - Extension of Dwellings in the Countryside where it states that proposals for the extension of dwellings will be permitted provided that the extension, amongst other things, does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling. The policy goes on to state that in assessing whether a proposed extension is disproportionate, account will be taken of the relative increase in floorspace together with the form, bulk and height of the proposal in comparison to the original dwelling. 5. The supporting text to Policy RD2 explains that the Council considers it most important to ensure that the Policy is not undermined through successive additions to the original dwelling over a period of years and that, consequently, in some circumstances even small extensions could fail to meet the requirements of the Policy. It goes on to state that as a guideline, a proposal which individually or cumulatively increases the floorspace of the original dwelling by more than 40% is unlikely to be acceptable but that in assessing whether an extension is "disproportionate", regard will be had to the effect of the proposal on the rural character of the area in general and of the overall scale of development on the site. 6. An ‘original building’ is defined in the Glossary to the Framework as a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was built originally. This differs from the supporting text to LP Policy RD2 which defines the original dwelling as the dwelling as it existed on 31 December 1968, when the policy was first introduced, or as it was constructed if this was at a date after December 1968. 7. The original property has previously been enlarged including through the addition of a single-storey extension to the rear, granted planning permission in 1961 (Ref: HM/R 12077), and a single-storey linked extension to the side, granted planning permission in 2005 (Ref: WA/2005/2266). 8. The appeal proposal would comprise three main elements. A first-floor rear extension over the existing flat roof extension; a single-storey porch extension to the rear; and a single-storey ‘infill’ extension to the front between the original dwelling and the later side addition. 9. Based on the Council’s definition of the ‘original dwelling’ both parties agree that the accumulated size of extensions, when taking account of the additions that are now proposed, would amount to an increase in floorspace of around 59% increase. For the purpose of the development plan, the proposal would add more floor area to the dwelling than the 40% limit suggested by the supporting text of Policy RD2. Appeal Decision APP/R3650/D/17/3191618 3 10. However, it is also necessary to consider the form, bulk, height and overall scale of the enlarged building. The proposed first floor extension would span the majority width of the property and would project almost 4m beyond the original rear elevation. The existing roof would be projected over the extension with equivalent eaves and ridge heights to include a new central crown in part. In my assessment the addition of this extra accommodation at first floor level would add significantly to the mass and scale of the house, resulting in a building of considerably more bulk. This element of the proposed works would be a noticeably dominant feature of the resulting building, even if seamlessly designed. The other elements of the proposal would be much more subservient. But when taken together, and with the previous side extension, which added some considerable sprawl to the footprint of the original dwelling in a fairly dominant form, I find that the proposal would contribute to an accumulation of additions that would be disproportionate when assessed against the size of the building as it existed in 1968. It follows that the proposal would also amount to a disproportionate addition over the size of the original building when considered against the Framework’s definition. 11. I conclude therefore that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purpose of the Framework and development plan policy. By definition this is harmful to the Green Belt and I attach substantial weight to this harm. The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt 12. The appellants have correctly pointed out that the effect of the proposal on openness is not a determinative factor in gauging inappropriateness in the case of extensions or alterations to buildings. However, the Framework states that an essential characteristic of Green Belts is their openness and that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land within them permanently open. 13. Openness is the absence of development. The addition of the first-floor element would result in a part of the building that would be taller and bulkier than the existing. The other elements of the proposal would encroach into space around the existing building that is currently either open or free from development. As such, there would be some loss of openness to the Green Belt. I agree with the appellants that the degree of this loss would be minimal, but this must be regarded as some additional harm, even if only slight, to add to the harm by reason of inappropriateness. The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area 14. The Council has raised no concern about the impact of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the existing dwelling or the wider area, which is an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and an Area of Great Landscape Value. I have no reason to disagree. Whilst the scale of the proposal would change the character of the dwelling in terms of its bulk, it would not appear more intrusive in the landscape or otherwise detract from the rural character of the area. In this respect the proposal would comply with other LP Policies that deal with design quality and the safeguarding of local character and landscape Appeal Decision APP/R3650/D/17/3191618 4 features However, the absence of harm in relation to these matters is neutral and not a positive factor in the scheme’s favour. Other Matters 15. The appellants have pointed out that there would be no harmful effects from the proposal in terms of neighbouring residential amenity, traffic and parking, or biodiversity and nature conservation. These are not matters of concern raised by the Council but the absence of any harms is not a positive factor in the scheme’s favour. 16. I have noted that the land at Abingerwood was previously used as a bloodhound breeding business and that there were various buildings, structures and hardstand areas associated with this use up until the 1980s. However, there is now no substantive evidence of these to be seen. The appeal proposal relates to a householder planning application. Notwithstanding the impact of the previous buildings, no part of the proposal involves demolition of any existing buildings and therefore there are no tangible benefits associated with the appeal scheme to be weighed in its favour. 17. My attention has been drawn to other dwellings in the Green Belt where planning permission has been given for extensions beyond the 40% guideline. The first is at Brook Cottage (Ref: WA/2017/0460), the second at Oakhurst (Ref: WA/2016/1238) and the third at The Laurels (Ref: WA/2003/0203). I note that in the case at Oakhurst the Council was satisfied that very special circumstances existed. In the case at The Laurels the Council was satisfied that the scale, bulk, massing and impact of the proposal was acceptable and proportionate to the original dwelling. I have no specific information about Brook Cottage and only very limited information relating to the others and am therefore unable to draw any direct comparison between them and the appeal proposal. What they do demonstrate however is that each case is determined on its individual planning merits and in this case I have considered the appeal based on the circumstances and context of the appeal property. Whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations 18. I have found the proposal to be inappropriate development for the reasons identified. This amounts to very substantial weight against it. In addition, I have also found that it would prejudice the openness of the Green belt, albeit if only to a small degree. None of the other considerations that have been put to me carry any amount of weight to clearly outweigh the harms that I have identified. The very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. 19. Accordingly, and having regard to all other matters raised, including the supportive comments from Ewhurst Parish Council and two local residents, the appeal is dismissed. John D Allan INSPECTOR