Appeal 6004819

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.

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 relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the proposal on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt; and • 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.

The Framework establishes that development within the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of the specified exceptions applies. The main parties have referred to exception c) of Framework paragraph 154 which sets out that the extension or alteration of a building is not inappropriate development provided that it does not result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. Policy P2 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites 2015 – 2034 (the LP) is consistent with the Framework in its overall approach to development in the Green Belt. Although a detached outbuilding, it is not disputed that the proposal would be a normal domestic adjunct and should be treated as an ‘extension’ for the purposes of Framework paragraph 154c), and I agree.

The property at the appeal site is a replacement of a bungalow that originally existed at the site; therefore, the proposal is to extend a building that replaced a previous building. While the Framework does not expressly deal with replacements, LP Policy P2 states that the original building shall mean either the building as it existed on 1 July 1948; or if no building existed on 1 July 1948, then the first building as it was originally built after this date. The Green Belt Supplementary Planning Document (2023) (the SPD) provides guidance on how the exception should be interpreted and advises that any replacement dwelling does not become the new original building. This is not disputed by the main parties and based on the particular local circumstances I agree that the previous building that existed at the site is the baseline for the assessment required under exception 154c).

Neither the Framework nor the LP provides a definition of ‘disproportionate additions’. It is well established that a comparison should be made between the building as first built and the building as proposed to be extended, together with any existing extensions. There are different ways of assessing and measuring proportionality and I am mindful that the Framework refers to size. As such, an assessment of whether a proposal would amount to a disproportionate addition is a matter of planning judgement having regard to factors which may include floor area, volume, footprint, and external dimensions. Indeed, this approach is consistent with the advice within the SPD.

There is dispute regarding the footprint of the original building which would result in an increase in volume of either 67% or 85% beyond that of the original building. While the appellant contends that the original building included a garage that was shown on application ref 21/P/01025, which is said to have been larger than the proposed garage, this is not supported in evidence. Irrespective of any volumetric calculation, in combination with the increase in size arising from the replacement dwelling, the proposal would result in a generous increase in development.

The proposal would alter the footprint and volume of built form at the site and increase the spread of development, such that the overall extent of the visual perception would be intrusive. This leads me to conclude that the proposal would result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. The existence of other permissions with a greater volume increase than the appeal proposal, and any theoretical replacement garage or permitted development scheme do not lead me away from my above findings. I have come to my own view, based on the planning merits of the case.

It has not been suggested that the proposal would meet any of the other listed exceptions in the Framework, and there is nothing before me that would lead me to disagree. Consequently, the proposal would fail to meet any of the exceptions set out by paragraph 154 of the Framework and would be inappropriate development, which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

As set out in the Framework, a fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt that is commonly taken to have both spatial and visual aspects. The proposal would increase the amount of built form at the appeal site and would therefore cause harm to openness spatially. Although the appeal site is located behind the frontage development of [address], set back from the street by a long private driveway between two detached houses, the arrangement allows for views towards the rear boundary of the site with glimpsed views to the countryside beyond. The proposal would considerably fill the gap between the dwelling and shared boundary, terminating the view which would inevitably lead to a loss of openness in a visual sense.

Accordingly, the proposal would represent a marked spatial and visual change, contributing to a small, but nevertheless detrimental effect on openness. The limited harm to openness would be contrary to the Green Belt purpose of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

The Council’s handling of the application has not affected my consideration of the planning merits of the case. There are no concerns regarding the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area however this, and any other policy compliance would be a neutral factor weighing neither for nor against the proposal. There are no objections to the proposal, but this is not a reason, in itself, to allow harmful development.

The appeal scheme would be inappropriate development which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. There would be a modest reduction in openness which is harmful to the Green Belt and the purposes for including land within it. The totality of the Green Belt harm attracts substantial weight. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm arising from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. There are no other considerations to clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist and the proposal would fail to accord with the Green Belt aims set out in LP Policy P2 and the Framework.

For the reasons given, my above findings bring the proposal into conflict with the development plan, read as a whole. There are no material considerations, including the Framework, to indicate 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.