Proposed two storey side extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 7 July 2026 by E Street BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI Decision by John Morrison BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 31 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6009343 Blue Hills, Abinger Lane, Abinger, Surrey RH5 6HZ • 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 Joanna Durham against the decision of Mole Valley District Council. • The application Ref is MO/2026/00282. • The development is a proposed two storey side extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal Procedure & Preliminary Matter 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 a) whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; its effect on b) the openness of the Green Belt; c) the character and appearance of the area and d) if the scheme would be inappropriate development, 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 it. Reasons for the Recommendation Inappropriate Development 4. Policy EN1 of the Mole Valley Local Plan 2024 (LP) is broadly consistent with the approach of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) insofar that the development of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate, except in certain circumstances. In this instance EN1 sets out, amongst other things, that an extension or alteration of an existing building will be permitted provided the development does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Paragraph 154 (c) of the Framework mirrors this wording. 5. Policy EN1 does not define the original building. For the purposes of the Framework, it is as it existed on 1 July 1948 or if constructed after this date, as it was built originally. The current dwelling nearing completion on the appeal site is a replacement of the previous and followed a 2024 planning permission. Where replacement dwellings are concerned, neither the Framework nor the development Appeal Decision 6009343 2 plan give a view as to how this affects what can be considered the original for Green Belt purposes and extensions/additions. 6. That said, the Framework is clear that the original building is as it existed on 1 July 1948 or as it was originally if it was built after that date. It can be one or the other. Since the building to be extended was built after 1948 and the development plan doesn’t offer anything more definitive, it would be reasonable to consider the current dwelling on site to be the original for the purposes of assessing whether any extensions thereto, individually or cumulatively, would amount to disproportionate additions. 7. The main parties do not appear to disagree that the appeal scheme would amount to in the region of 54 additional square metres of floor space. Equating to an 18% increase. Taking the measurements off the plans, floor space for this purpose would appear to be that arranged over the ground and first floor as a multiple. The plans also show a volumetric increase of just over 15% which the Council does not appear to dispute. It is unclear if this includes any new pitched roof space. 8. On paper, these are not large numbers, but they only tell part of the story. It is equally important that such things are measured qualitatively. Indeed, neither the Framework nor the development plan define what may or may not be disproportionate for their respective purposes. 9. The building is a substantial mass and of a significantly sprawling land take. It is arranged over two storeys in the main body, has a multitude of pitched roof spaces and an elongated attached outbuilding which houses a garage/car port and an annex in its own roof space. It is of some noticeable substance in and of itself. The proposed extension would be two storeys, have a partly pitched roof and protrude outwards into previously undeveloped space in an open courtyard. It would sprawl the building’s land take a not insignificant amount further beyond its established and generous limits. Putting aside the aforementioned numbers, it would present as something of substantial mass and thus disproportionate additions in this context. 10. With this and the above in mind, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, contrary to the definitions of such set out by Policy EN1 of the LP and the Framework. This would be harmful by being so. Openness 11. Openness is one of the key characteristics of the Green Belt. It has been held that it has a visual and spatial aspect. The latter can be taken to mean the absence of built form. The scheme would increase the size of the dwelling to the side and would be on a visually obvious elevation. It would result in an increase in built form where there is currently none. It might be limited quantitatively and subservient in design terms to the dwelling, so any reduction in the openness of the Green Belt in the above two respects would be equally limited. However, it would be an unavoidable reduction nonetheless and as such would be the source of further Green Belt harm. Contrary to the protection aims of EN1 and the Framework. Character and Appearance 12. The appeal building is a large, detached dwelling which sits centrally within the plot with a large parking area into which the proposal would extend. It is set back from the highway and stands alone in its design with varying roof forms and a strong Appeal Decision 6009343 3 visual prominence within the site. The dwelling is adjacent the hamlet core which features a church, pub and nursery with wider dwellings a modest distance away and of varying scales. These features in combination with the rurality contribute positively to the character and appearance of the area. 13. The two-storey side extension would be visible on both the side elevation and the front elevation within the site. However, it would be set down and back from the building and be clearly subservient. It would sit comfortably with the rest of the building and not appear overly bulky or add a significant amount of mass to the wider building in design terms. The fenestration would slightly differ in their positions due to the eaves but would not be so different to result in harm to the wider dwelling. 14. Whilst the Design Guidance for House Extensions and Outbuildings Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) advises against flat roofs, it would be a small proportion in relation to the rest of the building and is a natural and unharmful way to incorporate the extension. It would reflect the overall design ethos of the host dwelling and use complementary materials. Resultantly, the development would not result in harm to the character and appearance of the area and would comply with Policy EN4 of the LP, the SPD and the Framework which amongst other things, seek to ensure that developments are of a high-quality design and standard. Other Considerations 15. The appellant has referenced a previous planning appeal at Wildwood in which additions were allowed even when past extensions had increased the original floor space. However, I have no details on the context or plans of the dwelling and as detailed above, figures are part of the assessment only. The percentages quoted by the appellant are arbitrary. Neither the development plan nor any additional guidance suggests what might or might not be disproportionate. The appeal decision was a significant length of time ago. Policies and guidance have since changed. I could give no more than limited weight to it for comparisons sake. 16. The appeal site is located within the Surrey Hills National Landscape (NL). The Council is satisfied that the scheme would not result in harm, given that the statutory consultees have not requested any additional information or identified any areas of concern. Due to the design, siting and nature of the scheme, I have no reason to disagree with their conclusion. The special qualities of the NL would therefore be conserved. 17. The appeal evidence suggests that the appeal proposal was taken on as a two- stage process (replacement and then extension) to support the applicant with their ill health. I am aware that disability is a protected characteristic by the Public Sector Equality Duty set out under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. The design has been detailed as being centred around the applicant’s life, but I have not been provided with any details as to how the extension on its own would facilitate or support this or why there is not an alternative way to achieve the same aims. Particularly given the space and configuration of the approved dwelling. Dismissal of the appeal on the above grounds in the public interest would therefore be fair and proportionate having regard to the aforementioned duties. 18. The appellant has raised their concerns with the Council’s handling of the application; however, this is a matter for the main parties to discuss outside of the appeal process. I have not considered it further. Consistency of decision making is Appeal Decision 6009343 4 important, but this does not always mean the same conclusion will be reached. Context, evidence and planning merit may differ. I am unsure as to what appeal decision the appellant refers when they say “whilst the proposal would conflict with some of the wording of the above policy, it would not be contrary to its underlying objectives”, but this is patently not the case in the appeal scheme before me. Conclusion and Recommendation 19. The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would also reduce its openness. Substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. The other factors including the lack of harm to the character and appearance to the area, would not be sufficient to clearly outweigh the harms I have found. Such that the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist. 20. For the reasons given above the appeal scheme would not comply with the development plan and I have been given no compelling reason, taking into account other material considerations advanced, to deviate therefrom. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. E Street APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Inspector’s Decision 21. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. John Morrison INSPECTOR