Infill of a section of roof to create an additional bedroom. Footprint is unchanged

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 May 2019 by G Powys Jones MSc FRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 May 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/Y3615/D/19/3223604 74 Frog Grove Lane, Wood Street Village, GU3 3HA. • 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 Younus Sheikh Y Mustafa against the decision of Guildford Borough Council. • The application Ref 18/P/02446, dated 21 December 2018, was refused by notice dated 18 February 2019. • The development proposed is described as the infill of a section of roof to create an additional bedroom. Footprint is unchanged. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. Since the original decision on the planning application the Guildford Borough Local Plan – Strategy and Sites (LP) has been adopted as part of the development plan for the area. One of the outcomes is that the two saved policies of the Guildford Borough Local Plan (2003) referred to in the Council’s sole reason for refusal have been superseded. However, draft LP Policy P2 as referred to in the reason for refusal is now part of the adopted development plan and is relevant to the appeal given the location of the site within the Green Belt. I have considered the appeal in the context of the adopted development plan. Main issues 3. There are three main issues, these are: - Whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; - The effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; and - If the proposed development would be 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 proposed development. Reasons Appeal Decision APP/Y3615/D/19/3223604 2 Inappropriate development 4. LP Policy P2 sets out that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt will constitute inappropriate development albeit there are exceptions to which P2 defers to the Framework1. Paragraph 145 of the Framework explains, amongst other things, that the extension or alteration of a building may not be inappropriate development provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 5. The term ‘original building’ for the purposes of the Framework and LP policy P2 means a building, as it existed on 1 July 1948, or, if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was built originally. The term ‘disproportionate additions’ is not defined in the Framework, and is a matter for planning judgment. 6. The appellant has not seriously disputed the Council’s account of the planning history of the property or its calculations as to the previous and proposed increase in size. The account shows that the property was built before 1948 and has been substantially extended since 1 July 1948. The floorspace of the original building was about 87m2, which has roughly tripled since. 7. The proposed extension would be modest in terms of its increased floorspace and, because it involves an addition at roof level, would not increase the building’s footprint. However, taking account of the small size of the original building and the cumulative effects of previous extensions, the current proposal would in my view contribute to disproportionate additions to the original building. 8. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. By definition, and as per paragraph 143 of the Framework, inappropriate development is harmful to the Green Belt. Further, paragraph 144 states that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. A clear conflict therefore arises with those provisions of LP Policy P2 and the Framework already referred to. The Openness of the Green Belt 9. The appeal property stands within a lengthy ribbon of development occupying the eastern frontage of Frog Grove Lane extending from Wood Street Village to the junction of the Lane with the A323 to the north. Open fields lie opposite the appeal site, and despite the presence of dwellings, the locality exudes a distinct rural aura. Most of the dwellings on this frontage are comprised of extended bungalows, and I share the Council’s view that the proposed extension could not be said to be out of keeping with the general form and character of local development. 10. The proposal, however, which would involve the addition of a bedroom and en- suite facilities at roof level, would add significant bulk and mass to the roof, noticeably increasing the building’s overall presence. The Framework states that: “the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.” It has been established that openness has both a spatial and visual aspect. Taking into account both the above and how visible the roof addition would be, the appeal scheme would unavoidably 1 The National Planning Policy Framework Appeal Decision APP/Y3615/D/19/3223604 3 reduce openness in both aspects. The proposed development would therefore conflict with one of the fundamental aims of national policy in respect of the Green Belt. This would represent further harm to the Green Belt, in addition to that cause by the appeal scheme’s inappropriateness. Other Considerations 11. The appellant suggests that some neighbouring properties have extended further than his and that, nevertheless, the dwellings remain acceptably proportionate to their plots, as would the appeal property, if extended. No information has been provided as to the circumstances surrounding the extension of nearby properties, but I have previously concluded that the proposed development would not harm local character, as have the Council. The absence of local objections to the scheme is noted. Be these as they may, however, they represent a lack of harm and consequently are neutral in any balance of considerations. They cannot be used to weigh against harm. No specific benefits or other considerations to weigh against the harm have been put forward. Conclusions 12. I have found harm to the Green Belt in terms of the proposed development being inappropriate; it would adversely affect both the visual and the spatial aspects of its openness and conflict with the purposes of including land within it. As I have explained, these harms should be ascribed substantial weight. There would also be conflict with the development plan as I have identified. 13. In terms of other considerations, I have not found anything suitably compelling that could weigh against the harms. Indeed, they are matters on which the scheme would be acceptable or where there would be a lack of harm. As a consequence, the very special circumstances that are required to justify the proposed development have not been demonstrated. 14. Whilst having regard to all other matters that have been raised, it is for the reasons I have set out above that the appeal is dismissed. G Powys Jones INSPECTOR