Appeal 6004134

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey extension following demolition of existing conservatory at [site address] , Cobham, Surrey [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2025/2746, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development herby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans: Location Plan (scale 1:1250), Block Plan (scale 1:500), 20-CJ- 01 (Sept 2020), 20-CJ-02 (Sept 2020), 20-CJ-03A (October 2020) and 20-CJ-04 (October 2020).

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.

The main issue is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and the development plan.

The appeal property is a detached, two storey cottage. The cottage is set back from [site address] on higher ground and is well screened from view by mature trees and landscaping. The proposal involves the erection of a single storey front extension following the removal of an existing conservatory.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that new buildings are inappropriate in the Green Belt unless they fall within the given list of exceptions. One exception 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.

Policy DM18 of the Elmbridge Local Plan Development Management Plan (April

(the ‘Development Management Plan’) is generally consistent with the Framework in that it seeks to prevent disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling. It states, in part (a) (ii) that support will be given to proposals that do not result in an increase beyond 25% in volume and 25% in footprint. The Framework does not set a limit, leaving it to the decision maker to determine whether the extension is disproportionate. I have considered both the context and appearance of the property as well as the uplift in floorspace and volume when considering proportionality.

The appeal property has been previously extended and in their evidence the Council have drawn on information from historic planning applications that indicate that cumulatively the extensions well exceed 25% in volume and footprint. The appellant does not dispute these figures.

Details of a previous planning approval have been provided by both parties. This permission was granted in 2020 for a similar proposal; it was not implemented and has now lapsed due to the passage of time. The previous proposal was of a very similar height and style to the existing conservatory and did not exceed the height or width of the existing building. The current proposal is also a similar height and style to the existing conservatory, and the front building line remains unchanged. Whilst this extension is marginally wider than the previous proposal, it will not exceed the width of the existing building. The increase in volume would be fairly small, and it would not add unacceptable bulk or massing to the dwelling.

The proposed extension is proportionate and in keeping with the dwelling and would not overly dominate the frontage. Therefore, notwithstanding the further increase in volume, taking into account the relatively limited increase involved, I do not consider that the proposed extension would represent a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building.

For these reasons, I find that the proposal would not comprise inappropriate development within the Green Belt as defined by the Framework. The proposal would not comply with part (a)(ii) of Policy DM18 of the Development Management Plan the refers to acceptable percentage increase. However, as explained above, the proposed extension would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, and would therefore be compliant with the main thrust of Policy DM18.

I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council. Where necessary, and in the interests of clarity and precision, I have slightly altered the conditions to better reflect the advice in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance.

I have imposed the standard conditions relating to the commencement of development and specifying the relevant plans in order to provide certainty. I have included a condition requiring the external materials to match the existing building to protect the character and appearance of the appeal property.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would comply with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh this finding. Consequently, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

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