Appeal 6004189

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies; • the effect on the openness of the Green Belt; and • on the basis that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, whether any harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to very special circumstances required to justify the development.

The Framework establishes that development within the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate unless one of the specified exceptions applies. Exception (c), as set out in paragraph 154 of the Framework, allows for the extension and alteration of a building, provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Policy P2 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: strategy and sites (GBLP) refers to the Framework and the identified exceptions, and confirms that the original building is that as it existed on 1 July 1948 or the first building as it was originally built.

Manswell is a detached, rectangular property with a number of outbuildings and is set within a large plot. The planning history set out in the officer’s report indicates that the dwelling was approved in 1955. There are no details of this before me, but the Council indicate that the original floorspace was approximately 132sqm and that the existing is 368sqm. There is no breakdown of this figure, although the Council explain that they have included the detached garage and an outbuilding and calculate that total additions, including the proposed development (32sqm), equate to an increase in floor area of approximately 203%.

The appellant suggests the original was larger at 190 sqm. This is based on details in a 2002 application for an extension which added 36 sqm, and also indicate a subsequent side extension in 2015 added a further 18sqm. However, with reference to the 2002 plans, these figures only relate to the ground floor. The various consents over the years include single-storey, two-storey extensions and alterations to the roof with dormers to create a second floor. There are no details of the ‘proposed two-storey extension’ listed as approved in 1961, so it is not clear whether this was built. Nonetheless, the increase in total floorspace would be significantly more than the appellant’s figure of 45%.

Neither the Framework nor GBLP policy P2 define ‘disproportionate additions’. It is as set out in the Council’s Green Belt Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), a judgement based on various factors. The appellant notes a guide of 40%, although no source is identified, and the SPD explains that an acceptable percentage increase is not set. Additionally, the proposal would exceed this amount, more than marginally, taking into account all the additional floorspace.

While the previous extensions have been well integrated as part of the building, and the proposed orangery would relate and sit comfortably within the plot, the assessment is against the original, not the existing building. The proposal creating a new 6m projection to the rear would add both floor area and volume to the dwelling.

Given the distances and relationships, I tend to agree with the appellant that the garage and outbuilding are not extensions to the building, for the purposes of the calculation. However, even allowing for this and utilising the appellant’s figure for the original, the proposal would, in combination with the previous extensions, result in disproportionate additions to the size of the original dwelling. The proposal would therefore be inappropriate development, contrary to exception 154(c) and, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It would therefore conflict with Policy P2 of the GBLP and the relevant policies of the Framework as set out above.

Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt that has spatial as well as visual aspects. Spatially, there would be an increase in the size of the dwelling. The footprint of the building would also be increased, and by occupying previously undeveloped space, the proposed development would harmfully reduce the site's openness.

The proposed extension would be sited to the rear of the appeal property, in a site that benefits from screening due to mature hedging and vegetation. Nevertheless, from a spatial perspective, it would lead to a material reduction in the openness of the Green Belt.

The orangery is of a high-quality design which would complement and be subservient to the host property and is set away from neighbours. Thus, there would be no harmful effect on the character of the area or on residential amenity, and no conflict is identified with any other Local Plan policies.

My attention has been drawn to examples of extensions approved to other properties in the vicinity, where large percentage increases have been permitted. The specific details are not before me, and each case is to be considered on its own merits, but the proposal is for more than a 49% increase in floorspace, and while not fully quantified, it is more than likely to be over 67%.

The proposal is to provide an extension to a private home, providing additional and enhanced living space. This is, however, primarily a personal benefit to which I attach limited weight.

Very special circumstances can only exist if the harm I have identified is clearly outweighed by other considerations. I have found harm to the Green Belt by way of inappropriateness and openness. As set out in paragraph 153 of the Framework, substantial weight is given to harm to the Green Belt. Despite having regard to all the other considerations put before me in favour of the scheme by the appellant, I conclude that these other considerations taken together do not clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified to the Green Belt.

The development would conflict with policy P2, which relates to development in the Green Belt. Accordingly, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal do not exist.

For the reasons given, the conflict with national and local planning policy means that the appeal is dismissed.