Ground floor side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 21 August 2018 by H Lock BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 August 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/L3625/D/18/3203137 Little Albury, Rockshaw Road, Merstham, REDHILL, RH1 3DB  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 Mrs Jean Thornton against the decision of Reigate and Banstead Borough Council.  The application Ref. 18/00493/HHOLD, dated 1 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 10 May 2018.  The development proposed is ground floor side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matter 2. The reason for refusal includes reference to the National Planning Policy Framework, but on 24 July 2018 a revised Framework [the ‘Framework’] was published. However, the relevant aspects of Green Belt policy to this proposal are in effect the same in the two documents, and I have therefore taken the revised document into account in this assessment. Main Issues 3. The main issues are (1) whether the proposal is inappropriate development within the Green Belt (GB) for the purposes of planning policy set out in the Framework and the development plan;(2) the effect on the openness of the GB; (3) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the Rockshaw Road Conservation Area; and (4) if the development is inappropriate, 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 Inappropriate Development 4. The Framework confirms that the extension or alteration of a building is not inappropriate in the GB provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building1. The appeal property was originally a garage in connection with a flat above, but is now a single dwelling. According to the Council’s report, permission was granted for a single 1 ‘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. Appeal Decision APP/L3625/D/18/3203137 2 storey rear extension and side porch in 2008. The Council’s assessment is that, cumulatively, the existing and proposed extensions would increase the size of the dwelling by approximately 54%. The appellant does not dispute this figure. 5. However, whilst a numerical analysis is a useful starting point, it is also necessary to consider the scale and visual impact of the proposal. In this case, although in isolation the proposed extension would be reasonably modest, when considered alongside the previous extension the scale of single storey additions would be excessive and dominant in relation to the host house. Cumulatively, they would appear disproportionate to the original dwelling. 6. I therefore conclude that the proposal would constitute inappropriate development that is, by definition, harmful to the GB. This would conflict with the aims of the Framework, Policy CS3 of the Reigate and Banstead Local Plan: Core Strategy 2014, and Policies Co 1 and Ho 24A of the Reigate and Banstead Borough Local Plan 2005 (LP). In accordance with paragraph 144 of the Framework, this harm would have substantial weight. Openness of the GB 7. The appeal property is a detached dwelling that occupies the width of the site, but is set back from the roadside. There is an outbuilding in front of the property which partly screens the area of the proposed extension. The proposal would be built on a part of the site which is hard surfaced to provide pedestrian access to the building. 8. The extension would be built on a part of the site that is currently open and devoid of built form. However, given its current use and position adjacent to the house, redeveloping this part of the site would not diminish the sense of space and the openness of the GB at this point. To this extent the proposal would not conflict with the aims of the Framework, and LP Policies Co 1 and Ho 24A. I therefore conclude that the proposal would not result in harm to the openness of the GB, but this would not alter my conclusion on the first main issue. Character and Appearance of the Rockshaw Road Conservation Area 9. The appeal property is located in the Rockshaw Road Conservation Area, where there is a requirement for development to preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the setting. Whilst the existing side extension has a flat roof with a false pitch, the Council’s report indicates that it was not constructed in accordance with the approved plans and should have been built with a hipped roof to a ridge. In this context, the existing roof form does not justify the proposed design. 10. The existing side extension has limited visual impact when viewed from the road in front due to its recessed position and the screening afforded by the main house and shed, and neighbouring buildings. In contrast, the proposal would be visible in the Conservation Area due to its forward position, and would not be of an appropriate design standard for the setting. Whilst I note that there are neighbouring buildings with ‘dummy’ pitched roofs, no planning permissions for these have been brought to my attention, and as such they do not justify repeating the same untraditional roof form at this site. 11. I therefore conclude that the proposal would detract from the character and appearance of the appeal property and the Rockshaw Road Conservation Area, Appeal Decision APP/L3625/D/18/3203137 3 contrary to the overarching design aims of LP Policy Ho 9, and the specific objectives of LP Policy Pc 13, which requires all new development to complement and enhance the character of a Conservation Area in matters including design, with a strong preference for pitched roofs and traditional building forms and materials. Other Matters 12. According to the Council’s report the appeal site is within the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and an Area of Great Landscape Value. However, having regard to the position of the proposal and its relationship to the surrounding landscape, I consider that the proposal would have no material impact on the characteristics for which the landscape is noted. Other Considerations 13. The Framework advises that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the GB and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It advises that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the GB, and that ‘very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the GB by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. I now turn to the arguments made in favour of the proposal. 14. It is noted that the appeal property is relatively small in comparison with the adjoining properties, but this is not one of the criteria for assessing the impact of an extension on the GB, and therefore is an argument of limited weight. 15. The appellant considers that the proposal would provide a more conventional finish, with the open porch entrance covering the original flat/tiled roof, which the appellant accepts looks out of place. However, this modest porch canopy would not mask the flat roof to its rear, and the proposal would instead increase the amount of flat roof visible at the property. This factor therefore offers limited weight to the proposal. 16. The appellant disputes the Council’s concern that the proximity of the extension to the site boundary would be harmful, as the existing lobby and utility room are the same distance to the boundary as the proposal. However, the Council’s officer report advises that the existing extension was built larger and wider than the approved extension, and therefore closer to the side boundary. As such, this development adds little weight in favour of the proposal. 17. The distance from neighbouring ‘Heronswood’ is a neutral factor, in so far as it would not introduce additional harm in terms of its impact on occupants of that property. Some weight is afforded to the letter of support from the neighbouring residents. Green Belt Balancing Exercise and Conclusion 18. Having balanced the various matters, other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm to the GB by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, and the conflict with national and local planning policy. The very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist, and I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. H Lock INSPECTOR