Appeal 6003392

The appeal is dismissed.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal scheme. The main issues in regard to which are a) whether it would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt; it’s effect on b) the openness of the Green Belt and c) the character and appearance of the area; and d) 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.

Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate subject to a number of exceptions. These include 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. Policies DP10 and DP13 of the Tandridge District Local Plan Part 2: [name] 2014-2029 (2014) (LPP2) set out similar provisions.

For the purposes of Policy DP13, and in the case of an extension or alteration to an existing dwelling, the ‘original building’ is taken to be the dwelling as it existed on 31 December 1968 or, if constructed after 1968, as it was built originally. The Framework defines the date of an ‘original building’ as 1 July 1948, or as originally built if constructed after that date. Nevertheless, the LPP2 policies are broadly consistent with the Framework.

The Framework does not define what disproportionate might be. The justification to DP13 suggests a pragmatic approach and that each proposal will be judged on its individual merits, taking into account the size of the original building, the bulk, height, mass and prominence of the extension and its impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

The dwelling has previously been extended. The appellant calculates that the proposed first floor and rear dormer extensions would result in the volume of the dwelling being extended over and above the ‘original building’ by approximately 86%. The Council does not dispute this figure. The appellant additionally states that the proposal would represent an approximately 3.7% increase in volume over the existing dwelling.

The Council accepts that the extensions would introduce a relatively small increase in volume, without any increase in footprint. However, the agreed calculation indicates that the appeal dwelling has been very substantially extended over time. Although the proposal would add only a modest amount of additional volume, its form and proportions would nonetheless appreciably add to the building’s overall bulk and mass. When taken together, the sum total of existing and proposed extensions would represent disproportionate additions to the original building.

Consequently, the appeal scheme would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt as defined by the Framework. It would also conflict with Policies DP10 and DP13 of the LPP2, which together with the Framework, advise that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt.

The Government attaches great importance to the Green Belt. Two of its key components are its openness and permanence. Openness can be perceived spatially and visually.

By extending upwards over the existing catslide roof and enlarging the bulk of the rear dormer, the proposal would occupy areas of the site which are currently undeveloped, thereby diminishing its spatial openness. The first floor element would be seen from the road as having a greater height and massing than the existing catslide feature. Overall, there would be a plainly noticeable reduction in Green Belt openness in both aspects. This would result in further harm thereto as well as that arising from the scheme’s inappropriateness resulting, accordingly, in further conflict with the Green Belt protection aims of the Framework and the aforementioned development plan policies.

The appeal site comprises a detached dwelling positioned towards the end of a no-through road, occupying an elevated position within a sharply sloping plot that rises above its approach. [address] Peak is positively characterised by the individuality of its dwellings within a mature spacious setting, while maintaining a coherent identity through shared architectural features and a consistent palette of traditional materials.

The existing shallow-pitched rear dormer is wide, however its massing and overall presence is currently mitigated through its discreet containment within the central section of the dwelling’s roof, separated from the side catslide feature. Extending the dormer fully across to the building’s flank elevation would significantly increase its impact, in doing so unbalancing and dominating the rear elevation through its sheer breadth. It would also create an awkward junction with the side hipped slope to the new first floor addition’s roof.

Although it would remove the catslide, the first floor extension would nevertheless appear suitably subordinate to the existing dwelling when viewed from the front. The use of matching materials throughout would also be appropriate. The resultant box-like, clumsy form where the two extensions intersect towards the rear would however be perceptible in more angled views. While the property benefits from a good degree of natural boundary screening, limited wider visibility does not obviate the need to achieve high quality design that positively responds to its context.

Due to differences in their individual design, size, positioning and spatial relationship with their host dwelling, neither scheme at Nos 17 nor [address] Peak are sufficiently comparable to the appeal proposal. Thus, they do not lead me to a different conclusion on this issue.

The proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. It would conflict with Policy DP7 of the LPP2 and Policy CP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy (2008). These policies, amongst other things, expect new development to be of a high-quality design which integrates with its surroundings and reflects and respects existing character, setting and local context.

In reference to the appellant’s evidence concerning their own health issues, I have had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty set out under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act is also engaged as the proposal could affect the health, wellbeing or quality of life of persons within their home.

The appeal scheme would enlarge an existing bedroom, with the plans also indicating the installation of a mobility lift within the newly extended part of the dwelling. By enhancing the existing accommodation to better meet the appellant’s needs, I have no reason to doubt that the proposal would provide a benefit to their living conditions. This is a personal circumstance to which I afford weight in favour of the appeal.

Nevertheless, there is no sufficiently conclusive evidence to demonstrate that the appellant’s requirements cannot be met through alternative measures, for example an alternative location for the mobility lift, which might have a lesser impact than the appeal scheme. I am also mindful that personal circumstances and ownership of land can change, but the effect of the development would be permanent. Thus, dismissing the appeal would be justified and proportionate in this case, as it would protect the wider public interest in terms of the Green Belt and the character and appearance of the host dwelling and area.

No harm has been demonstrated with regard to the effect of the proposal upon neighbouring living conditions. This is a neutral matter which would not weigh in favour of the scheme.

The proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and unacceptably reduce its openness. These matters, as Green Belt harms, are worthy of substantial weight. There would also be harm to the character and appearance of the area. Overall, the factors weighing in support of the proposal do not attract sufficient weight to clearly outweigh them. As a result, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with it. I therefore recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.