Appeal 6002476

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: i) whether the development is inappropriate in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and local policies; ii) the effect of the development on openness; and iii) whether the harms to the Green Belt, and any other harms, are clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the development.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate. However, it also identifies a number of exceptions to this. One such exception is the extension of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Policy EE14 of the Runnymede Local Plan (2020) reflects this and adds that in assessing this, account will be taken of existing and proposed floorspace and built footprint.

The Council advise the original floor area of the dwelling was 108m 2. Planning permission1 was granted in 2002 for a two storey rear extension and a single storey side extension. This added 79m2 which equated to a 73% increase. The proposal would add a further 97m2 which would result in the original dwelling being extended by 162%. Such a significant increase would be disproportionate. The proposal would therefore represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would conflict with policy EE14 and the Framework as set out above. 1 [name].02/0673

Openness is often assessed in spatial and visual terms. In spatial terms the extensions would occupy space that is currently open. There would therefore be harm to openness spatially.

Visually, the rear extension would not be seen in the public realm, and could only be readily seen from the neighbouring property at No.3. The side extension however would be visible from the road and from No.5. It would be shorter than the apex of the existing single storey side extension which it would replace, but from the plans, would represent a modest increase in height compared to the existing flat roofed garage, which it would also replace. It would also comprise a considerably wider extension with a greater roof mass than that currently in situ. The gap that would be created to the west boundary would provide little benefit in terms of visual openness given it would be mostly hidden by built form at No.5 and thick hedging on the common boundary.

Overall the proposal would have an effect on openness in visual and spatial respects, but the harm from this would be modest given the single storey nature of the most visible extension.

Planning permission2 has been granted for an 8m deep single storey rear extension in the position where the proposed rear extension would be. Although that consented extension would be deeper than that currently proposed, it would not include a first floor element which would be visible above boundary treatment. This aspect of the proposal would therefore render the extension more visible than that already permitted, and it would most likely have a greater floor area.

A Lawful Development Certificate3 has also been granted for a single storey side extension in the position where the side extension in this appeal is proposed. However the current proposal would be substantially wider, extending almost the whole distance to the west boundary.

Planning permission has also been given4 for the demolition of the garage and its replacement with a pitched roof garage. This would have been similar in design and height to that included as part of this appeal, but it has not been implemented and the planning permission has now lapsed.

Taken together the proposal would incorporate some elements of these previous consents. Nonetheless, as a whole the proposal would have a greater floor area, and in places be of a greater height, than that previously granted. As such the development would have a greater impact on the Green Belt and these previous permissions are of no advantage. Therefore, they are of limited weight.

I have also been referred to extensions at neighbouring dwellings. Whilst it appears the dwelling at No.3 had already been extended by 175%, the proposed extension in that case involved only minor alterations to the roof. [name].1, although the dwelling had already been extended disproportionately, the proposed extension would have the same floor area and be in the same position on the site as an 2 [name].22/0774 3 [name].14/1195 4 [name].21/0516 extension granted prior approval. These two cases are therefore distinctly different from that before me which would involve substantial extensions which together are considerably larger than that which could be built under previous consents. Reference is also made to extensions at No.6, but I have no details of these nor whether they were considered disproportionate.

The benefits of making the dwelling more energy efficient are noted. [name] see no reason why such measures would rely on the proposed extensions and could not be provided independently instead.

It is understood that the current scheme differs from a previous submission by omitting a proposed increase in the height of the roof to the main house. Nonetheless, that has no bearing on my consideration of the proposed extensions which I have assessed on their own merits.

Although the Council do not object to the design of the development, its effect on the amenity of neighbours or its effect on the highway, these are neutral matters that would be expected of any extensions and do not weigh in favour of the proposal.

The development would be inappropriate in the Green Belt and would cause modest harm to openness. Paragraph 153 of the Framework says that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt, including harm to its openness. The other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harms to openness and by reason of inappropriateness, and so do not amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the development.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole and there are no other considerations that indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, for the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed.