Appeal 6002120

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: a) Whether or not the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies; b) The effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; and c) If the proposed development is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposed development.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) stipulates that development in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate unless it accords with one of the exceptions set out in the Framework. It states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and that any harm should be given substantial weight.

Both main parties have principally considered the exception at Paragraph 154 (c) of the Framework which allows for 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’. Aside from the exception at paragraph 155, none of the other exceptions to inappropriate development set out in the Framework were identified by the main parties as being relevant to the extensions.

Policy DP10 of the Tandridge District Local Plan Part 2 (TDLP) is broadly consistent with the Framework insofar as it seeks to resist inappropriate development in the Green Belt. With specific regard to extensions and alterations to buildings in the Green Belt, Policy DP13 requires them to be proportionate to the original dwelling. The supporting text indicates that the Council will take a pragmatic approach to judging such matters. The Officer Report goes further, indicating that the Council uses, as a rule of thumb, a guide of up to a 40% increase in the volume of the dwelling from its original size albeit a visual assessment will be part of the overall considerations. Whilst the Framework does not define ‘disproportionate additions’ and so does not provide this level of detail, the policy itself is not inconsistent with the overall aims of the Framework.

The main parties agree that the proposed extensions would result in a 75% increase in volume over the original building. The building’s footprint will be principally extended to the rear which will accommodate a two-storey extension and single storey extension off the side. The two-storey element would maintain the same ridge height as the existing roof and there would be a corresponding change to the shape and size of the main roof.

As the building sits on land that rises to the east, and notwithstanding that some of these works would be towards the rear of the building, they will noticeably increase the building’s overall size. The outcome would be a markedly much larger building than the one that currently exists on site. When considering the evidence before me, it is my planning judgement that the overall size of the building as now proposed cannot reasonably be considered to result in anything other than disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

In their statement, the appellants refer to Paragraph 155 of the Framework and the concept of grey belt. Even if I were to agree that the land could be considered as grey belt and that the development would not conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt, I have no firm evidence of a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed here, which is the test in Paragraph 155 (b).

The development proposed is a sizable dwelling with generous living accommodation including extended bedroom/kitchen/living/dining areas. However, applying for planning permission for a development does not demonstrate an unmet need. Indeed, if this were the extent of the test, then any scheme which sought planning permission would automatically pass, which cannot be the intention of the policy. Therefore, I am unable to find that the proposal complies with the exception in paragraph 155 (b).

Thus, in view of all of the above, I am unable to conclude other than that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The proposal would therefore conflict with the Framework and Policies DP10 and DP13 of the TDLP which both seek to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

Paragraph 142 of the Framework states: ‘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’. Openness is not defined in the Framework but in determining the nature and extent of any impact on Green Belt openness it is necessary to assess both spatial and visual impacts.

As noted above, the works would result in the house having an extended footprint, volume and mass. This would find particular visual and spatial expression in its greater depth across two storeys and consequential changes to the roof.

The site is in a secluded location and the house itself is set within a reasonably sized plot, set back from the road and behind well vegetated boundaries. However, the access road also forms a public footpath and so direct visibility of the appeal building from the public realm is highly likely. In certain views there would be slight erosion of the sense of separation from the neighbouring buildings to the rear.

In the context of the Green Belt and this particular setting, the spatial and visual changes would be limited and localised. Nonetheless, there would be a small but perceptible loss of openness as a consequence of the additional built form proposed.

This would be contrary to the guidance in the Framework as well as the objectives of the TDLP which seek to protect the openness of the Green Belt. As per Paragraph 153 of the Framework, any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness, attracts substantial weight.

The appellants raise the issue of permitted development rights for the building. Specifically, single storey extensions to the sides and rear of the existing dwelling and new roof dormer are presented with the appeal. These alterations have also been progressed via a certificate of lawful development. Having regard to the manner in which this option is being pursued, I consider that there is more than a theoretical possibility of the appellants being prepared to extend the dwelling through permitted development and so it is a material consideration.

However, the Council has indicated that these particular works would require planning permission, and the matter is currently at appeal. As such, at this stage I cannot be certain that what has been put to me is permitted development or that a prior approval submission would be successful. Notwithstanding this, I note that whilst these works might appear visually less cohesive than the two-storey proposal, the land levels and existing built form on site limit their overall effect when compared to the scheme before me. All of the above therefore tempers the weight attributable to the fall-back positions that have been presented to me.

The works are intended to deliver high energy/sustainability efficiency and although the scale of the benefit is not quantified, the proposed features are extensive. Indeed, part of the reason for the size of the enlarged dwelling is due to the efficiency improvements to the existing fabric of the building. Putting to one side the consequential effect this has and the tension it causes with Green Belt policy, what is proposed here appears to go beyond basic energy efficiency improvements and so is a benefit that attracts positive weight.

The proximity of the appeal site to a particular school adds weight to the appellants’ desire to extend the existing dwelling. However, there is no substantive evidence before me that the need to attend a particular school requires the appellants to remain in this specific property or that there are no other suitable properties within a similar distance of the school. This therefore limits the weight that I could attribute to this matter.

I appreciate that some neighbouring properties may have larger footprints than the appeal property. [name] have not been presented with a policy that specifically requires the retention of smaller properties, equally there is no requirement to ensure that dwellings in the area are of a similar size.

It is suggested that the Council has been inconsistent in how it has approached this case compared to other cases in relation to green belt policy and fallback. I have not had further regard in this decision to concerns over how the Council may have handled the application as this is an administrative matter to be taken up directly with them. I have focused on the planning merits of the scheme in regard to the main issues of the case and have had due regard to the matters of green belt policy and the fallback position.

I have concluded that the appeal scheme would be inappropriate development that would, by definition, harm the Green Belt. I have also concluded that the appeal scheme would result in limited harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Nonetheless, Paragraph 153 of the Framework requires substantial weight to be given to any harm to the Green Belt.

Consequently, such development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. In order to constitute very special circumstances, the circumstances cited in support of a proposal must not just outweigh the harm to the Green Belt but clearly outweigh it. I have considered the matters put before me in favour of the scheme. However, for the reasons given, I conclude that these other considerations as presented and when taken together do not clearly outweigh the substantial weight I have afforded to the Green Belt harm. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development have not been shown to exist in this appeal.

The development is contrary to the Framework and to the development plan when taken as a whole. I have considered all other matters raised but none outweigh the conclusions I have reached. For the reasons set out above, I dismiss the appeal.