Side extension; rear infill extension; alterations to roof line to provide accommodation within, including dormer windows to front elevation and gable roofs to rear elevation, with single storey glazed rear projection plus detached garage barn

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 15 November 2018 by Martin Andrews MA(Planning) BSc(Econ) DipTP & DipTP(Dist) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5 December 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/C3620/D/18/3208032 The Bungalow, Dean Oak Lane, Leigh, Reigate RH2 8PZ  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 A Cullum against the decision of the Mole Valley District Council.  The application, Ref. MO/2018/0510/PLAH, dated 18 March 2018, was refused by notice dated 11 May 2018.  The development proposed is a side extension; rear infill extension; alterations to roof line to provide accommodation within, including dormer windows to front elevation and gable roofs to rear elevation, with single storey glazed rear projection plus detached garage barn. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: (i) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework 2018 (‘the Framework’) and any relevant development plan policies; (ii) the effect on the openness of the Green Belt, and (iii) whether any harm to the Green Belt 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 it. Reasons Whether Inappropriate Development 3. In respect of issue (i), Paragraph 145 of the Framework explains that Local Planning Authorities should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt. However, there are a number of exceptions listed and these include 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. 4. The saved Policy RUD7 of the Mole Valley Local Plan 2000 (‘the Local Plan’) adopts a similar approach and through supporting paragraph 5.44 has both a floorspace test and an assessment to determine whether the proposal would be out of proportion with the original dwelling in terms of its form, bulk or prominence. On the first test, the planning officers’ report explains that Appeal Decision APP/C3620/D/18/3208032 2 generally a cumulative increase of over 50% in the floorspace of the original dwelling is considered to be ‘disproportionate’. 5. In this case, the Council calculates that the current proposal would increase the original building in terms of floorspace from 114m2 to 314m2 (but correctly including three long established extensions that appear to have been built under permitted development rights). Although not part formally of the policy it is noted that as regards volume the increase would be from 450m3 to 902m3. In both cases the figures equate to more than a 100% increase in the size of the original dwelling. 6. As regards the other test under Policy RUD7, whether the proposal would be out of proportion with the original dwelling in terms of its form, bulk or prominence, the application description provides a clear insight into the comprehensive nature of the scheme. This is confirmed by the submitted plans and elevations which show major floorspace additions to the southern flank of the existing bungalow and an increase in ridge height to facilitate the creation of an entire first floor of accommodation. The effect of this would be to significantly alter the form of the original building and substantially increase its bulk. 7. Accordingly, in terms of both the floorspace and appearance criteria I find that the appeal proposal would result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. As this is in conflict with both paragraph 145 of the Framework and Local Plan Policy RUD7, I conclude on issue (i) that the proposal would be ‘inappropriate development’ within the Green Belt, which paragraph 143 of the Framework explains is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Effect on Openness of the Green Belt 8. Turning to issue (ii), the effect on the openness of the Green Belt, the appeal scheme would significantly alter the character and appearance of the dwelling, with the increase in the building’s footprint and the introduction of the first floor / roof accommodation with dormer additions inevitably resulting in at least some noticeable loss of openness. Even allowing for the good-sized grounds within which the extended property would be seen and the fact that neighbouring properties are of a generous size, I consider it is inevitable that there would be a noticeable and harmful loss of openness within this enclave of buildings in the countryside. Other Considerations 9. The grounds of appeal refer to the potential for permitted development at the property and indeed the greater tolerances under the prior notification scheme as a fall-back position for the appellant and thereby a significant material consideration to be weighed in the planning balance. However, I do not accept the argument that permitted development is directly relevant in the assessment of whether the extension now proposed would represent a disproportionate addition. This is because for a calculation to be material in my decision, the assessment must be against the ‘original building’, not the ‘original building’ plus extensions potentially allowed under permitted development rights. 10. However, permitted development can be considered in the context of whether, if implemented in the form of the maximum allowable extensions to the Appeal Decision APP/C3620/D/18/3208032 3 dwelling instead of the appeal scheme, it would have similar or worse effects than the proposal. I consider this to be unlikely, as in terms of openness in the Green Belt the extensions to the building would be far less in quantitative terms than the over 100% increase in floorspace currently envisaged, whilst the extensions would also be more discreet (more to the rear and less at a higher level). As regards the form and bulk of the building, I do accept that permitted development would be of a less coherent design than the appeal scheme, but this disadvantage would be offset by a reduced amount of alteration to the form of the original building and less bulk than currently proposed. For these reasons I do not regard the fall-back as sufficiently supporting the case for allowing the appeal. 11. I acknowledge that Government policy is to encourage the extension of homes and that the appeal dwelling needs some extension and a complete refurbishment to meet present day living standards and provide family accommodation. However, Policy RUD7 has been saved by a direction of the Secretary of State and national Green Belt policy has remained essentially unaltered in the revised publication of the Framework less than six months ago. It remains as much as a policy straightjacket as ever and leaves little room for discretion. Drawing together my findings on this issue I consider that ‘Other Considerations’ have only limited weight in the balance of arguments in this case. Overall Conclusions 12. On issue (i), I have found that the appeal scheme is inappropriate development, which under national policy is harmful by definition. Paragraph 144 of the Framework also explains that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt and that ‘very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. I have already concluded on issue (ii) that there would be a harmful loss of openness and that as regards issue (iii) the other considerations in the form of a permitted development fall- back, a more coherent design and Government encouragement for housebuilding and extensions (which remains constrained by its own policy on the Green Belt in the Framework) can together be afforded only limited weight. 13. Accordingly, I find that in weighing the Green Belt balance the harm caused by the development being ‘inappropriate’ would not be ‘clearly outweighed’ by the other considerations. Therefore, very special circumstances do not exist and the appeal fails because of its harmful conflict with Local Plan Policy RUD7 and national policy for the protection of Green Belts in Section 13 of the Framework. 14. For these reasons, the appeal is dismissed. Martin Andrews INSPECTOR