Single storey rear infill extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 April 2026 by F Bradford BA (Hons) MRTPI Decision by A Edgington BSc (Hons) MA CMLI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30th June 2026 Appeal Ref: 6005609 35 Manor Farm Cottages, The Ridges, Guilford, Surrey GU3 1LH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Bennett against the decision of Guildford Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/P/01253. • The development proposed is a single storey rear infill extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure 2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal. Main Issues 3. The main issues are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • The effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt; and, • Whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal. Reasons for the Recommendation Inappropriate Development 4. The Framework establishes that development within the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate unless one of the specified exceptions set out in Paragraph 154 applies. 5. Paragraph 154 c) of the Framework states that development in the Green Belt is not inappropriate if it is 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. The Framework is silent with regards to what would be considered to be disproportionate. Appeal Decision 6005609 2 6. The Framework defines the original building as that that existing on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was built originally. The original floor area of the dwelling was 74 square metres (m 2), but following a number of additions and alterations, the floor area has increased to 144 m 2. The infill extension would result in the dwelling having a floor area of 155 m 2, an approximate 109% increase beyond that of the original dwelling. 7. Whilst it is acknowledged that the development would be a modest addition to the dwelling’s existing configuration, Paragraph 154 c) of the Framework requires consideration of the cumulative impact of any addition or alterations beyond the original dwelling. An increase of more than 100 per cent floor space would amount to disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Accordingly, the development does not meet the criterion set out in Paragraph 154 c). It would be inappropriate development which, by definition, is harmful to the Green Belt. 8. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. There is no definition of ‘openness,’ but it is commonly taken to mean an absence of activity and built form. 9. The proposal would replace an area of hardstanding with a small extension. It would be a modest addition but nonetheless would introduce bulk and built form where there is currently none. Moreover, as the dwelling is adjacent to an open field, the extension would be visible. There would therefore be a loss of openness, to which I attribute moderate weight. 10. The site is located in an area with relatively sparse built form interspersed with areas of fields and woodland. Although there are larger developments nearby, the vast and frequent gaps between built form allow openness to be experienced. The area is not urbanised. In any case, even if there was a degree of urbanisation this is not determinative as the site is located in the Green Belt . My reasoning is based on the clear criteria contained with the Framework. 11. As such, the development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and have an adverse effect on openness. It would conflict with Paragraph 154 of the Framework as well as Policy P2 of the Local Plan which reinforces the Framework and seeks to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development. I further find conflict with the Guildford Borough Green Belt SPD 2023. Other Considerations 12. I acknowledge that the appellant seeks to extend their usable internal space through the proposal. However, this benefit would be inherently limited to the private occupants of the appeal dwelling. The argument is also advanced that the development would improve the external appearance of the dwelling, but its current external appearance is not unattractive. Accordingly, I attribute these benefits limited weight. Other Matters 13. The appellant has drawn my attention to the recently approved Mount Browne Police Headquarters which is accessed via The Ridges. This would be a large/bulky structure that would have a much more notable impact on the Green Appeal Decision 6005609 3 Belt than what is before me. However, whilst I acknowledge the appellant’s position, the context in which this was approved is not before me. 14. The appellant has provided ratios of the coverage of surrounding plots with development which are similar to that proposed. However, this is not a consideration that is relevant to this appeal which is based on the original and proposed floor area of the original dwelling. 15. The site is located within the Surrey Hills National Landscape. However, the Council is satisfied that due to its scale, the proposal would conserve the natural beauty of the National Landscape and there would not be conflict with paragraph 189 of the Framework. I have no evidence before me to suggest otherwise. Green Belt Balance, Conclusion and Recommendation 16. Paragraph 153 of the Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It further requires that substantial weight be given to any Green Belt harm. “Very special circumstances” will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other identified harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 17. As set out above ,there are no other considerations of such weight that would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and loss of openness. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist. As such, the development would be contrary to the development plan and the Framework. 18. I therefore recommend that the appeal is dismissed. Finlay Bradford APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 19. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. A Edgington INSPECTOR