Single storey rear extension with shallow pitched roof to extend kitchen/diner. Proposal is adding to existing single storey rear extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 29 July 2026 by B Pattison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 4th August 2026 Appeal Ref: 6008838 Ashdown, Margery Lane, Lower Kingswood, Surrey KT20 7BG  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 Ejaz Ahmed against the decision of Reigate and Banstead Borough Council.  The application Ref is 25/02194/HHOLD.  The development proposed is single storey rear extension with shallow pitched roof to extend kitchen/diner. Proposal is adding to existing single storey rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are:  whether or not the proposal would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (“the Framework”) and any relevant development plan policies;  the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt;  the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host dwelling; and  if the proposal would be inappropriate development, whether or not the 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 necessary to justify the proposal. Reasons Whether or not inappropriate development in the Green Belt 3. The site is located within the Green Belt. The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts and 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. 4. Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that new development is inappropriate in the Green Belt unless it falls within a list of exceptions. One exception 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 Appeal Decision 6008838 2 Framework’s glossary explains that “original” in this case means the building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was built originally. 5. Policy NHE5 of the Reigate & Banstead Local Plan Development Management Plan (2019) (DMP) is broadly consistent with the Framework and outlines that extensions to buildings in the Green Belt will be permitted where the extensions, in combination with any other additions, would not be disproportionate compared to the original building. The policy also sets out a number of considerations to be taken into account when assessing whether the proposal is a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original dwelling. This includes a consideration of the additional footprint and floor area created by the alteration. 6. The Framework does not specify either in relative or absolute terms what might be a disproportionate addition, nor have I been referred to any such figures in the Council’s development plan policies. The appellant does not dispute the Council’s calculation that the proposal, when combined with the existing extension to the dwelling, results in an increase in floor area of 54%. Furthermore, when combined with the previous extension, the proposal projects a total of 8 metres from the dwelling’s original rear elevation. Taking these figures into account, the proposal results in a considerable increase in additional footprint and floor area. 7. I note that the ridge height of the proposal is far lower than the appeal property’s main ridgeline and the extension is located to the rear of the original building. However, in my view, the proposal disproportionately changes the size of the original dwelling. This leads me to find that the proposal undoubtedly results in disproportionate additions to the original building and thus fails to meet the exception within paragraph 154 of the Framework. 8. Accordingly, I conclude that the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the Framework. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Openness 9. Paragraph 142 of the Framework identifies 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. 10. Openness has both spatial and visual aspects. Whilst positioned to the rear of the property and at a notably lower height than the main roof, the proposal results in the introduction of additional built form which projects into the rear garden where previously there was none. The effect of the extension adds significant depth to the property. This has a harmful effect on spatial openness. 11. Given the siting to the rear, the additional massing is not especially prominent in surrounding views. However, it is visible from adjoining neighbouring properties. Within the context of the site, I consider the effects on both the spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt are limited. Whilst limited, this nevertheless erodes the openness of the Green Belt, which, as noted, is one of its essential characteristics. 12. Therefore, I conclude that the proposal would not preserve, and would have a harmful effect on, the openness of the Green Belt. As such, it would conflict with Appeal Decision 6008838 3 the provisions within the Framework which seek to preserve the openness of the Green Belt. Character and appearance 13. The appeal property is located within a small cluster of detached dwellings set back from Margery Lane behind driveways and front gardens. There is variation in both the design and the use of external facing materials across the cluster. The existing property's rear garden is not visible from Margery Lane, and views of the dwelling within the street scene are unaffected by the proposal. 14. I note that many of the dwellings within the cluster have been extended and altered over time, including the addition of substantial rear projections. When combined with the existing extension, the proposal results in a significant rear projection at the appeal property. However, given its discreet location to the rear of the dwelling, together with the presence of similar rear extensions in the surrounding area, I do not consider it appears visually intrusive or harmful to the character and appearance of the host dwelling or the wider area. 15. For the above reasons I conclude that the proposal does not harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling. There would be no conflict with Policy DES 1 of the DMP insofar as it requires new development to be of a high quality design that makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of its surroundings. Other considerations 16. The proposal delivers an improvement to the occupiers’ living conditions. This is a private benefit. However, the Framework is clear that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. As I have found that the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, this reduces the weight I attach to this factor, and I therefore afford it only limited weight. Green Belt Balance and Conclusion 17. The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt which should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It does not preserve, and has a harmful effect on, the openness of the Green Belt. Substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to Policy NHE5 of the DMP and Policy CS3 of the Reigate and Banstead Local Plan: Core Strategy (2014) and the principles of the Framework that seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development. The Council also alleges a conflict with Policy NHE1 of the DMP with regards to this matter. However, my attention has not been drawn to any words in it that are relevant to this issue. The policy has therefore not been determinative in my decision. 18. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. The other considerations in relation to the proposal do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. 19. I have also found no harm in relation to any matters other than the harm to the Green Belt. However, the absence of harm or conflict with other relevant Appeal Decision 6008838 4 development plan policies is a neutral factor and does not weigh in favour of the proposal. 20. The proposal is contrary to the development plan and the Framework taken as a whole. There are no other material considerations which indicate that the decision should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. B Pattison INSPECTOR