Appeal Against Conditions

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 14 May 2019 by William Cooper BA (Hons) MA CMLI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 5th July 2019 Appeal Ref: APP/M3645/D/19/3224938 Pilgrims Corner, Gravelly Hill, Caterham, Surrey CR3 6ES • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. • The appeal is made by Mr Adel Perseh against the decision of Tandridge District Council. • The application Ref: TA/2018/2120, dated 18 October 2018, was refused by notice dated 20 December 2018. • The application sought planning permission for erection of first floor side and rear extensions without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref: TA/2016/2075, dated 3 January 2016. • The condition in dispute is No.2 which states that: This decision refers to drawings numbered 9155_2, 9155_4, 9155_1 and red-edged site plan scanned on 08/1///2018. The development shall be carried out in accordance with these approved drawings. There shall be no variations from these approved drawings. • The reason given for the condition is: To ensure that the scheme proceeds as set out in the planning application and therefore remains in accordance with the Development Plan. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Background and Main Issues 2. The appeal site is a detached split-level, two-storey dwelling. It is at the end of a row of detached dwellings, with land of relatively rural character surrounding much of the property. The site is located within the Green Belt and the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). 3. The retrospective proposal entails increase in the mass of the eastern wing of the dwelling at first floor and roof level, along with its ridge height, beyond that which was previously permitted1. On the evidence that is before me, and based on what I could see on my site visit, the external part of this work is now substantially complete. 4. Paragraph 145 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework)2 sets out a small number of exceptions to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. One such exception is the ‘extension or alteration of a building 1 Planning permission Ref: TA/2016/2075. 2 Published on 19 February 2019. Appeal Decision APP/M3645/D/19/3224938 2 provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building’. 5. The development plan includes the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: Detailed Policies 2014-2029 (2014) (LPDP). Policy DP10 of the LPDP requires planning permission for inappropriate development within the Green Belt to be refused unless very special circumstances exist, to the extent that other considerations clearly outweigh any potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm. Policy DP13 of the LPDP sets out, amongst other things, that extension and alteration to a building would not be inappropriate in the Green Belt (outside the Defined Villages), where the proposal does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. As such, in respect of the matters described above, DP10 and DP13 are broadly consistent with the Framework. 6. Central to the appeal is the matter of whether the proposed addition of height and bulk to the previously approved development, would result in development that is disproportionate to the original building, and harmful to the openness of the Green Belt, so as to justify retention of condition No.2. 7. The main issues are therefore: a) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the revised Framework and any relevant development plan policies b) the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt, and c) 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 development. Reasons Whether inappropriate development 8. The extent of the proposed increase in the appeal dwelling’s volume, compared to that of the original built form, is a matter of dispute between the main parties. The Council considers that the proposal would take that increase from approximately 48% for the scheme permitted by planning permission Ref: TA/2016/2075, up to approximately 53%. By contrast, the appellant considers that the total increase in volume would be approximately 38%. As such, the evidence before me indicates that the proposal would increase the dwellinghouse from its original size by at least over a third, and, quite possibly, by over half. In any case, it is evident that past extensions have added significantly greater bulk and volume to the dwelling as allowed by reason of the aforementioned planning permission. 9. The proposed increase in the bulk of the side extension, at first-floor and roof level, removes the visual subservience which the eastern wing had in relation to the main body of the dwellinghouse, under planning permission Ref: TA/2016/2075. This changes the proportions of the building such that a more ‘monolithic’, enlarged main core dominates. The location of these changes at the upper part of the site, readily visible, viewed travelling up and down the road in front of the property, contributes to their prominence in the locality, Appeal Decision APP/M3645/D/19/3224938 3 and emphasises the additional bulk. These factors in combination lead me to conclude that the proposal entails a disproportionate addition within the Green Belt. 10. I note the appellant’s view that the proposal ‘integrates in a compatible way’ with the dwelling. However, for the reasons described above, I consider that the proposal is disproportionate. 11. For the above reasons, the appeal site would not fall within the exceptions listed in paragraph 145c) of the Framework. Accordingly, in this respect, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would conflict with the Framework and Policy DP13 of the LP. Together the policies require strict control over inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Openness of the Green Belt 12. The increased bulk of the appeal dwelling, with loss of subservience of its eastern wing and increase in visual dominance of its main core, resulting from the proposal, as described above, harms the openness of the site and the neighbourhood. 13. It is noted that the appellant considers that the separation between the side flank walls of the appeal dwelling and neighbouring dwelling ‘Bantham’, to the east, results in ‘no detriment to the openness of the Green Belt’. However, for the reasons described above, I find that the proposal would result in harm to openness of the Green Belt. Other considerations 14. The proposal would result in additional space in bedroom No.1 of the appeal dwelling. Given the modest scale of benefit, I attach limited weight to it. 15. In terms of character and appearance, the Council considers that the proposal would not be ‘overly detrimental to the…existing building or surrounding area’, and I see no reason to disagree. As such, I find character and appearance to be a neutral factor in my assessment. Planning balance and conclusion 16. The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt which is, by definition, harmful. There would also be loss of openness of the Green Belt. The Framework establishes that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. 17. In conclusion, and on balance, the substantial weight to be given to Green Belt harm arising from the development would not be clearly outweighed by other considerations sufficient to demonstrate very special circumstances. The proposal would therefore fail to accord with the Green Belt aims of Policy DP10 of the LPDP and the Framework. Condition No.2 is therefore necessary in order to safeguard the Green Belt from inappropriate and harmful development. Consequently, and taking into account all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. William Cooper INSPECTOR