Appeal 6004885

The appeal is dismissed.

Although this appeal is against the failure of the Authority to give notice of its decision on the application within the prescribed period, I have received as part of the Authority’s submissions a statement which sets out that, had it been in a position to determine the application, it would have refused planning permission on the grounds that the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and no very special circumstances have been demonstrated which would outweigh the substantial harm that would be caused to the Green Belt. I have therefore dealt with the appeal on this basis.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies; • the effect of the proposed development upon the openness of the Green Belt; and, • if the proposed development would be inappropriate, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal. Appeal Decision: 6004885

The appeal site is located within the Metropolitan Green Belt. Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate development unless it falls within specified exceptions. One such example listed 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 P2 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan: Strategy and Sites 2015-2034 (LP) applies the exceptions in the Framework without defining what constitutes disproportionate additions.

According to the appellant’s calculations the original dwelling had a floor area of 169 sqm and the existing house has a floor area of 317.12 sqm, following several extensions. Adding an extant permission for a utility room (4.3 sqm) and the proposed extension (13.83 sqm) would lead to a cumulative floor space increase of approximately 100%. The Council does not dispute the percentage floorspace increase.

The Council’s Green Belt Supplementary Planning Document (2023) (SPD) also does not define disproportionate. However, it notes that the overall percentage increase in scale is likely to give a strong indication of the extent to which an extension may be considered disproportionate but should be considered with other factors such as scale relative to plots size, mass, footprint, height, bulk and overall visual perception.

The appeal property is a detached house set in large grounds set back from the road behind a gravel drive and forecourt. High hedges behind a brick wall at the front of the property limit views of the house from the road and pavement to glimpses above the front drive gate. High hedges and mature trees that form the rear garden boundary restrict views of the rear of the property from neighbouring houses and gardens.

The proposed extension would replace an attached side garage with a ground floor annex covering the same footprint as the garage. The first-floor extension above it would be less than half the width of the annex and set below the main roof ridge. In the context of the plot size, the house as it exists now and given the limited views into the site, on their own the proposed extensions would be modest additions with little visual impact. However, in combination with other extensions the proposed development would double the footprint of the house from its original size and must, therefore, be considered disproportionate and consequently inappropriate development in the Green Belt, contrary to paragraph 154 of the Framework and Policy P2 of the LP.

Paragraph 153 of the Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

The appeal site side of [site address] comprises linear development of large, detached houses along the main road set back behind a grass verge and pavement. The front boundaries comprise fences and walls with mature trees and Appeal Decision: 6004885 hedges which largely screen the houses from the road. The opposite side of the road has fewer houses until approaching the north of the village where there are small housing estates. Gated entrances enable glimpses of houses close to the appeal site from the road and pavement, but generally the area appears enclosed by vegetation and boundary features either side of the road, rather than visually open with views of the wider area. The proposed extensions would be screened from the road and have little visual impact on openness.

In spatial terms the proposed single storey extension would replace the existing garage and would not result in any increase in floor space or volume. The second storey extension above it would not increase the footprint of the building and there would consequently be no encroachment into the garden. It would lead to a slight increase in the volume of the building and floor space but overall, the effect on openness would be negligible.

Other than on Green Belt grounds there are no objections to the proposed development. However, the absence of harm in terms of the character and appearance of the building and area, neighbours’ amenity and regarding preserving the character or appearance of the [site address] Conservation Area are ordinary requirements of planning policy and thus are neutral factors.

The proposed development would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. In accordance with the Framework, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. The other considerations put forward do not clearly outweigh the substantial weight that I give to the harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposal do not exist. The proposed development would not accord with the development plan and there are no other material considerations to outweigh that finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal should not succeed.