Erection of a single-storey front porch extension, and a single and two-storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 30 April 2019 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 17 May 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/R3650/D/19/3223745 Knowle Green, Birtley Road, Bramley, Guildford, GU5 0JA • 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 and Mrs Ajayi against the decision of Waverley Borough Council. • The application Ref WA/2018/1778, dated 8 October 2018, was refused by notice dated 12 December 2018. • The development proposed is the erection of a single-storey front porch extension, and a single and two-storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single-storey front porch extension, and a single and two-storey rear extension at Knowle Green, Birtley Road, Bramley, Guildford, GU5 0JA in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref WA/2018/1778, dated 8 October 2018, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Drg Nos 3138_100, 3138_101, 3138_102, 3138_110 and 3138_112. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Main Issue 2. The main issue is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and relevant development plan policies. Reasons 3. The appeal property is a detached, two-storey dwelling positioned amongst a run of similar type dwellings to the west side of Birtley Road. It lies within the Appeal Decision APP/R3650/D/19/3223745 2 rural settlement boundary for Bramley and within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. However, the extension of an existing building is not inappropriate provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 4. Policy RE2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 1 (LP Part 1), adopted in 2018, states that the Metropolitan Green Belt will be protected against inappropriate development in accordance with national policy. The Framework does not define what would constitute a disproportionate addition to an original building. Saved Policy RD2 of the Waverley Borough Council Local Plan 2002 (LP 2002) deals with the extension of dwellings within the countryside, including the Green Belt, and carries with it an equivalent presumption against disproportionate additions over and above the size of an original dwelling. The Policy’s reasoned justification states that, as a guideline, a proposal which individually or cumulatively increases the floorspace of the original dwelling by more than 40% would be likely to be considered disproportionate. However, it further explicitly states that the provisions of Policy RD2 will not apply to properties within settlements. Furthermore, LP 2002 Policy RD1, which deals with rural settlements including Bramley, acknowledges that limited development can be accommodated without detriment to the character of the settlement or to the appearance of the countryside and the openness of the Green Belt. The policy specifically states that within the Rural Settlement boundaries the Council will permit development which is well related in scale and location to existing development and which takes account of the form, setting, local building style and heritage of the settlement. 5. The appeal property has previously been extended. The Council has calculated that the appeal proposal, when taken with previous extensions, would increase the floorspace of the original dwelling by around 122%. The appellants’ calculation of 46% does not account for the floor space from previous extensions and I therefore take the Council’s figure as likely to be a more accurate reflection of the accumulated increase over the size of the original dwelling. However, based upon the policy background, I am not persuaded that a mathematical calculation alone is a reliable method for assessing whether an extension is disproportionate or not in this instance. 6. There is no question that the appeal proposal would add mass and bulk to the original dwelling but that is an inevitable consequence of any extension to some degree or other, particularly at first floor level. Nevertheless, when assessing the application, the Council found no conflict with Policy RD1, or with any other policies of the development plan insofar as they address design quality and visual impact. I have no reason to disagree. The proposed extensions would be well related to the form, bulk and height of the existing building. The additional mass to the rear of the dwelling would be reasonably contained and aligned with the established building lines of other properties to this side of Birtley Road such that it would not stand proud or be seen to be conspicuous in its setting. The extension to the front would be modest and equally inconspicuous. Furthermore, the works would not significantly increase the spread of built form on the site beyond the single-storey extensions to the front and rear which I note have recently been granted planning permission under a separate proposal (Ref: WA/2018/2188). There would be no detriment to the Appeal Decision APP/R3650/D/19/3223745 3 character of the settlement, the appearance of the countryside, or the openness of the Green Belt. 7. When seen in the round, whilst the uplift in floorspace to the original dwelling would be large, given the location of the proposed extensions and the surrounding built-up context to this part of the settlement, I find that the resulting building would appear reasonably proportionate to the size of the original. The proposal would therefore not be a disproportionate addition and would therefore not amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. As such there would be no conflict with LP Part 1 Policy RE2 or with the Framework as it relates to development in the Green Belt. 8. I share the Council’s view that the proposal would not impact upon the landscape character of the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Therefore, in the absence of any other conflict with the development plan, the appeal succeeds subject to conditions specifying the relevant drawings, in order to provide certainty, and to control the external materials of construction in the interests of maintaining the character and appearance of the area. John D Allan INSPECTOR