Development proposed is: “Application for the erection of a single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 September 2018 by R J Maile BSc FRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 21 September 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Q3630/D/18/3205460 1 The Laurels, St Ann’s Hill Road, Chertsey, Surrey, KT16 9NL.  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 again st a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Steven Castle against the decision of Runnymede Borough Council.  The application ref: RU.18/0192, dated 24 January 2018, was refused by notice dated 28 March 2018.  The development proposed is: “Application for the erection of a single storey rear extension.” Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single storey rear extension at 1 The Laurels, St Ann’s Hill Road, Chertsey, Surrey, KT16 9NL, in accordance with the terms of the application ref: RU.18/ 0192, dated 24 January 2018, 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: Drawing no. 16_763B_001 Rev B: Location Plan – scale 1:1250. 16_763B_002 Rev A: Block Plan as Proposed – scale 1:500. 16_763B_004: Existing Dwelling: Floor Plan and Elevations – scales 1:50 and 1:100. 16_763B_005 Rev A: Proposed Extension: Floor Plan and Elevations – scales 1:50 and 1:100. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are: a) Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt for the purposes of national policy and the policies of the Development Plan. b) The effect of the development upon the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it. Appeal Decision APP/Q3630/D/18/3205460 2 Reasons a) Whether inappropriate development. 3. 1 The Laurels comprises a small detached dwelling that was formed by the conversion of a garage pursuant to planning permission granted on 28 April 2017 under ref: RU.16/1084. Prior to its conversion to a dwelling the garage had been the subject of an extension, for which planning permission was granted on 21 July 2014 (ref: RU.14/0828). 4. The appeal site is located within the Green Belt beyond the settlement of Chertsey, although there is sporadic development nearby including dwelling houses close by in St Ann’s Hill Road and Ruxbury Road. 5. National policy in the Framework1 states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances (paragraph 143). Paragraph 145 does allow for some exceptions, including 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. An “original building” is defined within 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. 6. The Council suggests that the original building in this instance comprises the original small garage, having a floor area of 21m2. It argues that the original building has already been the subject of a substantial extension, albeit in its former use as a garage. On behalf of the appellant it is contended that the original building is that which was formed by the conversion of the garage to a dwelling in 2017, at which time it had a floor area of 38.21m2. 7. “Saved” Policy GB6 of the Local Plan2 allows for extensions to dwellings within the Green Belt where the Council is satisfied that the proposal meets a number of criteria as set out in the policy. Amongst other matters, paragraph i) of the policy states that “Exceptional circumstances will therefore need to apply to increases in floor area, either for extensions or replacements, in excess of 30% of the size of the dwelling in May 1986.” It further states at paragraph i) b) that “for a new dwelling built after May 1986 it will be the size of that dwelling at the date of construction. 8. In reaching my conclusion that the “original building” is that which was formed by the conversion of the garage to a dwelling in 2017 I have also taken account of further wording in the policy, which is repeated in the Council’s more recent SPG3, that states: “Where there has already been an enlargement of a dwelling over the base figure, either by way of extension or replacement, this will be taken into account in determining the 30% increase so as to prevent a cumulative increase in size which could have a harmful impact on the Green Belt.” This wording clearly refers to “a dwelling” rather than “a building.” 1 The National Planning Policy Framework (July 2018). 2 The Runnymede Borough Local Plan : Second Alteration 2001 (adopted 21 April 2001). 3 Residential Extensions and Replacement Dwellings in the Green Belt : Borough Local Plan - Policy GB6 Supplementary Planning Guidance (November 2004). Appeal Decision APP/Q3630/D/18/3205460 3 9. In the subject case the previous extension took place when the building was in use as a garage, such that I find upon the first main issue that the proposal would not be inappropriate development within the Green Belt for the purposes of national policy and the policies of the Development Plan. b) Effect upon openness of Green Belt. 10. The proposed extension is only some 2.65m in depth. It would span the rear elevation of the existing dwelling and have a similar low roof height below 3m. It is screened from the road by the existing structure and by solid entrance gates. To the flank and rear there is a 2m high close boarded fence and 3m high mature laurel hedging. 11. For these reasons, I have found upon the second main issue that development as proposed would not have a harmful impact upon the openness of the Green Belt or the purposes of including land in it, as required by national policy at Chapter 13 of the Framework and “saved” Policy GB6 of the Local Plan. Other Considerations 12. The existing single bedroom dwelling is of very limited size. National policy in the Framework supports the provision of high quality buildings and a wide cross-section of housing (see Chapters 5 and 12). 13. Furthermore, both “saved” Policy GB6 of the Local Plan and the Council’s SPG3 state at paragraph i) that: “The Authority is seeking to prevent a cumulative increase in the size of dwellings and their harmful impact on the Green Belt, whilst still allowing the reasonable provision of contemporary standards of accommodation.” 14. The current scheme seeks to provide a small residential extension in order to meet contemporary standards of accommodation. Once extended, the dwelling would still comprise a small, single storey one bedroom unit. The extension would not be visible in the Green Belt, neither would the dwelling bring about any increase in activity associated with additional bedroom accommodation. Conditions 15. The Council has put forward a total of three conditions to be imposed should I be minded to allow the appeal, which I have considered against the tests of the Framework and advice in the Planning Practice Guidance issued on 6 March 2014. 16. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the extension are detailed on Drawing no. 16_763B_005 Revision A and match those used in the existing building. Accordingly, a separate condition in this regard, as requested by the Council, is not required. 17. My reasons for the balance of the conditions are: 18. Condition 1 is the standard commencement condition imposed in accordance with section 91(1) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Condition 2, which requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans, provides certainty. Appeal Decision APP/Q3630/D/18/3205460 4 Conclusion 19. I have carefully weighed the arguments adduced by both parties in considering whether or not the proposed extension comprises a disproportionate addition to an existing building. 20. In reaching my finding that the extension is not inappropriate development I have taken full account of “saved” Policy GB6 of the Local Plan, which I have analysed above, together with the wording of the Council’s adopted SPG. I am also mindful that paragraph 11 d. of the Framework refers to situations where the Development Plan is out of date, as is the case here. 21. Even had I adjudged that the extension was inappropriate development within the Green Belt, I would nevertheless have concluded that very special circumstances existed to support my decision to allow the appeal. These comprise the small size of the extension, its lack of impact upon openness and the enhanced living accommodation the proposal seeks to achieve. 22. Accordingly, and for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. R. J. Maile INSPECTOR