For the demolition of existing conservatory. Erection of single storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 June 2018 by Elizabeth Lawrence BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 26th June 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M3645/D/18/3200700 South Lodge, Bletchingley Road, Nutfield, Redhill, RH1 4HN  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 P Brown against the decision of Tandridge District Council.  The application Ref TA/2017/2424, dated 19 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 25 January 2018.  The development proposed is for the demolition of existing conservatory. Erection of single storey side extension. Decision The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of existing conservatory. Erection of single storey side extension at South Lodge, Bletchingley Road, Nutfield, Redhill, RH1 4HN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref TA/2017/2424, dated 19 November 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 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, BP 1701-01, BP 1701-02 Revision A and BP 1701-03 Revision A. 3) The external materials to be used in the construction of the extension hereby permitted shall match those of the host dwelling. Main Issues 1. The main issues include: a) Whether the proposal amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and development plan policy. b) If the proposal amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt. c) If the proposal amounts to inappropriate development, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly Appeal Decision APP/M3645/D/18/3200700 2 outweighed by other considerations, including any public benefits, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Reasons Whether the proposal amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of the NPPF and development plan policy. 2. Policy DP10 of the Tandridge Local Plan: Part 2 (Local Plan) and the NPPF state that within the Green Belt inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Paragraph 89 of the NPPF states that local planning authorities should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt, other than various stated exceptions. This includes the extension or alteration of an existing building, provided that any proposal does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 3. Policy DP13 of the Local Plan is consistent with this. The supporting text to policy DP13 of the Local Plan advises that the Council will take a pragmatic approach when assessing whether or not an extension amounts to an inappropriate addition. Factors including the size of the original building and the bulk, height, mass, volume and prominence of the proposed extension will be taken into account. 4. The size calculations provided by the Council and the Appellant are inconsistent and so have not been relied on in the following assessment. From the Appeal site visit and all of the details submitted it is clear that the dwelling has been extended on both sides and to the rear with two single storey extensions and one two storey extension. 5. The floor area and volume of these additions are evident from the submitted drawings and the proposed increase in floor area and volume over and above the original dwelling is not insignificant. However, it is also important to consider this issue in terms of the physical form of the existing and proposed additions and in particular their height, bulk and massing. In considering these factors the existing conservatory has been ignored as it would be demolished as part of the proposal. Similarly, whilst it is noted that a Certificate of Lawfulness has been granted for a single storey extension at the rear of the dwelling it has not been constructed and there is no certainty as to whether it would be constructed in the future. 6. The proposed extension would be single storey in height and would have a flat roof. Together with the existing single storey extension on the south side of the dwelling it would increase the width of the dwelling at ground floor level by no more than 50%. The width of the upper floor and roof would be largely unchanged, other than the hipped roof over the existing side extension. Overall the two extensions would be visually modest and subservient to the original dwelling. 7. The existing two storey rear extension stretches across half the width of the original dwelling and mirrors the design and proportions of the southern part of the house. As a consequence, both on its own and together with the existing Appeal Decision APP/M3645/D/18/3200700 3 and proposed side extensions it would be proportionate in size to the original dwelling. 8. For these reasons I find that the proposed extension, together with the existing retained extensions would not amount to disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling. 9. I conclude on this main issue that the proposal would not amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would accord with paragraph 89 of the NPPF and policies DP10 and DP13 of the Local Plan. This means that the scheme should not be regarded as harmful to the openness of the Green Belt, to the fundamental aim of the Green Belt or to the purposes of including land within it. Accordingly, there is no need to consider Green Belt policy further under main issues b) and c). Other matters 10. The proposed extension would be located on the north side of the host dwelling and would be set back from the front building line of the dwelling. It would be modest in size and form and would be constructed from materials to match the host dwelling. As a result of these factors the proposed extension would be visually subservient to and would respect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Conclusion 11. Having regard to the conclusion on the first main issue and the other matters the Appeal is allowed. Elizabeth Lawrence INSPECTOR