Appeal 3292444

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. [name] of the appeal form it is stated that the description of development has changed to, ‘Raise roof ridge height to allow first floor extension including balcony to rear’. As the application was determined on the basis of the revised description, I have determined the appeal on the same basis.

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 proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of [address] and the surrounding area; 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.

The appeal site is in the Green Belt and in this regard the Framework establishes that the construction of new buildings within the Green Belt is inappropriate development. There is a closed list of exceptions to this in paragraph 149 of the Framework. One of which relates to 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 (paragraph 149 c) of the Framework).

Whilst Policy RUD7 of the Mole Valley Local Plan (adopted 2000) (Local Plan) does not specifically refer to Green Belts but instead refers to the extension of dwellings in the countryside, its supporting text, at paragraph 5.43 of the Local Plan, refers to protecting the open character of the countryside within and beyond the Green Belt. Similarly, paragraph 5.47 of the Local Plan refers to the objective of safeguarding the openness of the Green Belt. Paragraph 5.6 of the Local Plan, within the same chapter of the Local Plan as Policy RUD7, also provides that, “The protection of the Green Belt and wider countryside is the foundation on which the Plan's policies for development in the rural areas have been prepared. They seek to prevent inappropriate development in the countryside and to protect the character and function of villages by resisting development that would result in their urbanisation or their encroachment into the countryside”.

Given these references to Green Belt-related concepts such as openness, inappropriate development, and encroachment into the countryside, all of which are found within chapter 13 of the Framework which relates to protecting Green Belt land, I consider that Policy RUD7 is not merely a ‘landscape policy’.

In any event, the formulation of the text in criterion 1. of Policy RUD7, which refers to ‘a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original dwelling’, closely resembles the corresponding text in paragraph 149 c). Furthermore, criterion 1. does not refer to the landscape, but rather requires the assessment of a proposal to be against the baseline of the original dwelling, in similar terms to paragraph 149 c). On this basis, I consider that criterion 1. of Policy RUD7 is broadly consistent with the Framework and that it is relevant to the question of whether the proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

Both criterion 1. of Policy RUD7 and paragraph 149 c) of the Framework specifically refer to ‘size’, in considering whether any disproportionate additions over and above the original dwelling / building would occur. Accordingly, taking account of the guidance given in paragraph 5.44 of the Local Plan, size is the focus of my assessment under this main issue. Matters relating to the character and appearance of [address] and the surrounding area, and the protection of the countryside from a landscape perspective are dealt with later in this decision.

The proposal would add an additional storey to the existing single-storey dwelling. The Council have calculated that the proposal would result in an approximately 112% increase in floor area over and above the size of the original dwelling, and this specific figure has not been disputed by the appellants. This percentage increase in size over the original building would clearly be substantial.

It is also the case that, according to figures provided by the main parties, [address] would be increased in height from a maximum ridge height of approximately 5.8 metres to a maximum height of approximately 11.4 metres, and the existing eaves to ridge height would be increased from approximately 2.5 metres to approximately 5.7 metres. As such, the proposal would markedly increase the height of [address], resulting in a property of greatly increased bulk than that which presently exists.

Taking all of the above into account, although the footprint of [address] would not be increased and the site is situated in a secluded location, the proposal would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. It would not therefore benefit from the exception to inappropriate development provided for at paragraph 149 c) of the Framework. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and so does not serve any of the purposes of the Green Belt.

The Framework denotes openness as an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. The openness of the Green Belt has a spatial aspect as well as a visual aspect. ‘Open’ can mean the absence of development in spatial terms, and it follows that openness can be harmed even when development is not readily visible from the public realm.

Given the markedly increased height and bulk pertaining to [address] that the proposal would cause, referred to in the first main issue above, the openness of the Green Belt would not be preserved, but rather would be unduly reduced in both spatial and visual terms. Although given the secluded nature of the site and noting that the footprint of [address] would not be increased, the impact upon openness would be both limited and localised, actual harm would nevertheless result to the Green Belt.

[address] is a large detached single-storey dwelling with an attached garage, situated in a generously-sized plot. The proposal, by way of the introduction of an additional storey and a noticeably enlarged roof, would expand [address] to such an extent that it would appear virtually as a new dwelling. Whilst the proposal would follow the footprint of the existing dwelling and would match the existing dwelling in terms of the proposed materials and fenestration design, the resulting dwelling would be of a far grander scale than [address] as existing, with a top-heavy appearance and a much larger silhouette.

As such, although the symmetry of [address] would be preserved and the use of the extra accommodation would form part of the existing residential unit, the proposed development would serve to erode much of the simple and legible appearance of the existing low-slung dwelling, thereby noticeably detracting from the existing appearance and character of [address].

[address] is situated in a secluded and verdant location and therefore any public views of [address] as extended would likely be very limited, meaning that the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. However, this does not alter the harm that the proposal would cause to [address] itself.

I therefore find that the proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of [address]. It would conflict with criterion 2. of Policy RUD7 which provides that, amongst other things, in the countryside outside boundaries of the villages defined in accordance with Policies RUD1, RUD2 and RUD3, proposals for the extension of dwellings will be permitted where they would not detract from the appearance and character of the existing dwelling.

The proposal would also conflict with paragraph 130 b) of the Framework which provides that, amongst other things, planning decisions should ensure that developments are visually attractive as a result of good architecture, and with paragraph 134 of the Framework which provides that, amongst other things, development that is not well designed should be refused.

The Framework makes it clear at paragraph 148 that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. It establishes that 'very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

It is common ground between the main parties that the proposal would conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the Area of [name] (AGLV) within which the site sits. I have no evidence to indicate otherwise. However, these are neutral matters, which do not weigh in favour of the proposal. As the protection of Green Belt land is subject to specific planning policies, including those within chapter 13 of the Framework, the absence of harm with respect to the protected landscapes comprising the AONB and the AGLV does not change my findings in relation to any of the main issues in this appeal.

The proposal would provide enhanced living accommodation for the appellants and for any future occupiers of [address]. However, as this would mainly offer benefits of only a private nature, this consideration attracts limited weight in favour of the proposal. The proposal would provide work for construction professionals and provide for local investment during the construction phase, although considering that the proposal relates to [address] only, the economic benefits in these respects would likely be limited.

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would result in a reduction in its openness. These matters carry substantial weight. The proposed development would also have an unacceptable and harmful effect on the character and appearance of [address], which is a matter to which I accord moderate weight.

Cumulatively, the benefits of the proposal would be modest, and accordingly they attract no more than moderate weight in favour of the proposal. As such, I find that these benefits do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified.

It follows that the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal do not exist. Therefore, the proposal would not comply with criterion 1. of Policy RUD7 of the Local Plan, and neither would the proposal contribute to the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy which is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, as per paragraph 137 of the Framework.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.