Rear single and double storey extension with roof extension and rear dormer extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 July 2026 by A Wright BSc (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 July 2026 Appeal Ref: 6010577 Linden, 14 Wembury Park, Newchapel, Surrey RH7 6HH • 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 David Shepherd against the decision of Tandridge District Council. • The application Ref is TA/2026/284. • The development proposed is a rear single and double storey extension with roof extension and rear dormer extension. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to relevant development plan policies and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); • the effect of the proposal 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 Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development 3. The appeal site lies within the Green Belt identified in the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2 Detailed Policies 2014 (DP). Within the Green Belt, Policy DP10 of the DP states that inappropriate development will normally be refused. 4. Policy DP13 of the DP outlines that unless very special circumstances can be clearly demonstrated, the Council will regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt, but it lists some exceptions. This includes the extension or alteration of buildings where the proposal does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building as it existed at 31 December 1968 (DP13(E)). It also includes limited infill development within defined villages (DP13(C)) and limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed sites where the proposal would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt and the purpose of including land within it than the existing development (DP13(G)). Appeal Decision 6010577 2 5. The exceptions in Policy DP13 broadly reflect those set out in paragraphs 154(c), (e) and (g) of the Framework. However, the courts have found that to determine whether a site is within a village under paragraph 154(e), regard must be given to the extent of the settlement on the ground. 6. The proposal is for extensions to an existing dwelling. Therefore, it is not infill development nor redevelopment under Policy DP13(C) or DP13(G) of the DP or paragraphs 154(e) and 154(g) of the Framework. 7. The appeal site comprises a two-storey detached dwelling in a sizeable plot with a large rear garden. In 1968, the dwelling had a volume of 470m3 but has since been extended, including single and first floor rear additions. Whilst the existing conservatory would be removed, the proposed extensions would increase the amount of accommodation on the ground and first floors, with a rear dormer providing second floor living accommodation in the roofspace. The existing and proposed additions would amount to 394m3 in volume. This would create a dwelling with a total volume of 864m3, an increase of 83% over the original house. The cumulative increase in the floor area of the dwelling would be around 85%. 8. Policy DP13(E) of the DP and paragraph 154(c) of the Framework do not employ a mathematical calculation for determining whether an addition would be disproportionate. However, when viewed cumulatively alongside the existing extensions, due to the increase in volume and floorspace, the scheme would result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. 9. Consequently, the proposal would not be an exception under Policy DP13 of the DP or paragraphs 154(c), (e) or (g) of the Framework and would thus be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Effect of the proposal on openness 10. As set out in the Framework, the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Openness is the counterpart of urban sprawl and often connotates the absence of development. It is an open textured term and can have both spatial and visual dimensions. The courts have found that the form and scale of development and its locational context will be factors in assessing whether a proposal would harm openness. 11. The appeal site lies within a small pocket of residential development comprising mainly large detached dwellings accessed from a private road. As well as increasing the ground level building footprint, the proposal would add a significant amount of built development at the first-floor level and introduce an extension into the roof space. Therefore, the house with the proposed extensions would be more substantial in its form and volume than the existing building. This would harm the spatial openness of the Green Belt. 12. The appeal scheme would not be readily visible from the public realm, but whilst set back from the carriageway, it would be evident from the private Wembury Park. Further, although the rear garden is well enclosed by tall boundary hedges, there would be views of the upper parts of the proposed rear additions from the grounds of neighbouring properties. As such, the proposal would also impact on visual openness. Therefore, there would be a demonstrable loss of openness, in both visual and spatial terms. Appeal Decision 6010577 3 Other considerations 13. The appellant refers to the fallback position of erecting substantial extensions, particularly hip-to-gable extensions and box dormer windows, under permitted development (PD) rights1. There should be a real prospect of a fallback development being implemented. Whilst it may be possible to carry out extensions to the roof under PD rights, there are no drawings or other evidence to indicate that there is a greater than theoretical possibility that this development would take place. In any event, the proposal also includes significant additions to the ground and first floor, and it is not clear that these could be carried out under PD rights. Thus, I accord limited weight to the possible fallback position. 14. There would be some local economic benefits during the construction phase, but given the scale of the proposal, these benefits would be limited. 15. The Framework supports development which makes efficient use of land. Nevertheless, it needs to be read as a whole, and it attaches great importance to Green Belts and their role in preventing urban sprawl by keeping such land permanently open. Therefore, given that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and harm its openness, I give limited weight to it making more efficient use of the site. Other Matters 16. The Council did not find harm or development plan conflict in relation to character and appearance, and impacts on heritage assets and landscape. However, even if I were to agree with the Council on these points, the absence of harm would be a neutral matter which would not carry weight in favour of the proposed scheme. Whether there would be Very Special Circumstances 17. Policy DP10 of the DP outlines that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. There would also be adverse impacts on its openness. Policy DP10 states that inappropriate development will only be permitted where 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. This broadly aligns with the Framework which also specifies that substantial weight should be given to the harm caused to the Green Belt. 18. As found by the courts, other considerations do not have to be unique, rare or uncommon to be special. In this case, I give limited weight to the fallback position, economic benefits and the proposed development making more efficient use of the site. Nonetheless, the other considerations do not 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. Thus, it would be contrary to Policy DP10 of the DP and the Framework. Conclusion 19. For the above reasons, the proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations, including the Framework and the very special circumstances test therein, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed. 1 Under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 Appeal Decision 6010577 4 A Wright INSPECTOR