Appeal 6002604

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the extension to rear elevation of garage at [site address] , [site address] , The Sands, Farnham, Surrey [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/P/00585.

The application form states that the development has already been completed. I have therefore dealt with the appeal on the basis that planning permission is being sought retrospectively for the development. I have amended the description of development in the banner heading and my formal decision to remove reference to ‘retrospective’ as this is not an act of development under section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act).

The main issues are: • whether the development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of development plan policy and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); • the effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt; and • if it is inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development.

The Framework explains that the fundamental aim of Green Belt Policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence.

The appeal site comprises a large, detached dwelling set back from [site address] within a large plot. To the side of the dwelling is single-storey, detached outbuilding accessed via the driveway. The outbuilding is used as a garage associated with [site address] . The development is for an extension to the rear of the garage. The extension has been constructed.

Policy P2 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites 2019 (LP) refers to the Framework, which states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate. An exception to this is 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.

Both Policy P2 of the LP and the Framework define “original building” as being a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was built originally. The Green Belt Supplementary Planning Document 2023 (SPD) refers to case law1, which sets out that an extension is not confined to physically attached structures. Given the size and proximity of the existing building in relation to the dwelling and its purpose associated with the host dwelling, it would be reasonable to treat the garage as a normal domestic adjunct to [site address] .

The appellant has not disputed the Council’s figures in respect of the size of the original building forming the dwelling. The dwelling has subsequently been extended, and the pre-existing garage has been constructed. The Council’s figures indicate a 76% increase in floor area over and above the size of the original dwelling, and the proposal would result in an 86% increase in floor area. While this is a large increase, neither Policy P2 nor the Framework define ‘disproportionate’ whilst the SPD acknowledges that other factors would need to be considered in respect of whether a proposal would be disproportionate.

The enlargement of the garage has resulted in a limited increase in the footprint of the building. The matching eaves height and shallow pitch of the roof helps to restrict the overall bulk of the addition. The addition is in a discreet position to the rear of the garage and, given the presence of the existing dwelling and the considerable rise in land levels to the rear, the development has a minimal visual effect on the surroundings. While there has been a large increase in floor area of the original dwelling, due to the considerable plot size of the site, the diminutive scale of the addition and the discreet position of the development, the extension has not resulted in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

Where a proposal is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt, it should not be regarded as being harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. Likewise, very special circumstances do not need to be demonstrated in order for the development to be considered acceptable in Green Belt terms. Consequently, the 1 Warwick District Council v Secretary of State for [name], Housing and Communities [2022] EWHC 2145 (Admin) proposal would accord with Policy P2 of the LP as set out above and the Framework, which seeks to protect the Green Belt from harm.

The site is within the Surrey Hills National Landscape (NL). Paragraph 189 of the Framework requires that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in the NL. I am also mindful of the statutory duty to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of NLs. Given the limited size and discreet position of the development, I see no reason to disagree with the Council’s conclusion that the development does not harm the landscape and scenic beauty of the NL.

Schedule 7A of the Act introduced a statutory framework for biodiversity net gain, and it applies to all planning applications for non-major development submitted on or after 2 April 2024. Under the statutory framework, subject to some exceptions, every grant of planning permission is deemed to have been granted subject to the [name] (BGC), which requires that at least a 10% increase in biodiversity value is met. However, the Planning Practice Guidance states that the BGC does not apply to householder development, such as this.

As the development has already taken place, it is not necessary to impose a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.