Appeal 6004933

The appeal is dismissed.

The description of development set out in the banner heading above is taken from the application form. However, the appeal form and decision notice describe the development proposed as ‘the erection of a self/custom-build two-storey dwelling house with air source heat pump and solar panels together with bin and cycle stores, alterations to driveway and associated landscaping following demolition of existing dwelling’. As this is a more accurate description of the proposed development, I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The Council’s Planning Officer’s Report and decision notice refer to policies in the Surrey Hills AONB Management Plan 2020-2025. Since the Council made its decision on the planning application, it has adopted the Surrey Hills National Landscape Management Plan (2025-2030) (MP) which replaces the earlier document, though the relevant policies have been carried forward. I have used the latest version of the MP in my decision.

The main issues in this appeal are: • whether the proposed development would conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the Surrey Hills National Landscape (formerly Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty); and • 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 appeal site comprises a sizeable plot containing a detached house and garage positioned on a bank significantly higher than [site address] , with rolling fields and some tree belts beyond. It is in a rural location, with a boundary hedgerow on top of the roadside bank and some trees along the country lane. The traditional dwelling has previously been extended, with accommodation primarily on the ground floor and two rooms in the roofspace above. Despite its elevated position, the relatively modest scale of the building means it sits comfortably within the landscape.

The site lies within the Surrey Hills National Landscape (NL) which is characterised by farmland, woodland and downs, amongst other things. There is a statutory duty to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the area. In addition, the Framework requires great weight to be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty in NLs which have the highest status of protection.

Policies in the MP reflect statutory and national policy requirements. They require development to respect the special landscape character and local distinctiveness, being complementary in form, setting and scale with their surroundings. As the darker skies give the NL a sense of remoteness and peacefulness, and light emanating from buildings can intrude into views of an otherwise dark landscape, the NL states that large areas of glazing and rooflights should be avoided.

The existing dwelling has very low eaves with upper floor accommodation contained within the roofslope and modest sized openings, with only small rooflights within its steeply pitched roof. In comparison, the proposed house would have higher eaves, a full height two storey projecting gable along one end of the building providing accommodation over a full first floor, and half dormers aligning with the front and rear faces of the building.

The significantly greater massing at first floor and roof level along with its elevated position above the lane would give the new house a dominant appearance in the landscape. The replacement building would not be in scale with its surroundings, nor respect the special landscape character, contrary to the policies in the MP.

My site visit was during the daytime, and I was unable to observe the night skies in this part of the NL. There are no streetlights along this part of [site address] , and the existing dwelling sits away from other traditional style houses on the lane.

The existing property has modest sized windows, with only small openings within its steeply pitched roof. In contrast, the proposed dwelling would contain large areas of glazing, including substantial sized patio doors on both levels and a large bank of windows to the entrance hall and landing.

The absence of rooflights would avoid upward light spillage. Nonetheless, even if anti-glare or anti-reflective glass were used, due to the extent of glazing over both levels, a significantly greater amount of light would emanate from the proposed building compared to the existing dwelling. Drawn curtains and blinds would reduce light spillage from the new building, but their use could not be relied upon. Therefore, the proposal would cause harmful light spill in the NL, conflicting with the MP’s aims to protect the dark landscape.

The appellant indicates that light spill was not an issue in relation to a previously refused proposal for a replacement dwelling on the site1. However, I have no substantive information enabling me to compare the previous scheme with the one currently before me.

The roadside boundary hedge would screen some parts of the new building in views from the lane, but this could be removed or become damaged or diseased. In any event, upper parts of the new structure would be evident above the vegetation and there would be glimpsed views of it through the site access, particularly when travelling northbound along the lane. The appellant owns a large area of adjoining land, but despite the rolling topography and various copses, the proposed dwelling would also be visible in private views from neighbouring land.

Therefore, I conclude that the proposed development would fail to conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the NL. This would be contrary to Policies RE3 and TD1 of the Waverley Local Plan Part 1: [name] and Sites 2018 (LPP1) and Policies DM1 and DM4 of the Waverley Local Plan Part 2: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies 2023 (LPP2). Together, these seek to protect and enhance the character and qualities of the NL and require new development to respond to the distinctive local character of the area in which it is located, amongst other things.

The appeal site lies outside any defined settlement boundaries within the Metropolitan Green Belt identified on the Council’s Adopted Policies Map. Policy RE2 of the LPP1 seeks to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development in accordance with the Framework.

The Framework lists the types of development that are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, subject to certain conditions. This includes the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces (paragraph 154(d)) which is also addressed in Policy DM14 of the LPP2. It also includes the redevelopment of previously developed land (PDL) which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt (paragraph 154(g)).

In assessing whether a development is materially larger, Policy DM14 states that consideration will be given to changes in scale, mass, height and floorspace. Outside the defined settlement boundaries, Policy DM14 indicates that a new building with a floorspace of 10% or more larger than the building it replaced will be considered materially larger.

The floorspace of the original dwelling was 103m2 and this was subsequently extended to 184m2. The proposed dwelling would have a floorspace of 202m2, an increase of 18m2 above that of the existing building. This 9.1% increase is within that allowed by Policy DM14.

Nevertheless, the higher eaves, two storey projecting gable, and half dormers would create a significantly more sizeable building than the existing structure. Given the substantial increase in scale and mass of built development at the upper level, the proposed building would be materially larger than the one it replaces. 1 Planning application ref: WA/2024/02199 ‘the previously refused scheme’ Therefore, it would not fall within the exception in Policy DM14 of the LPP2 and paragraph 154(d) of the Framework.

The appellant considers that the site is previously developed land (PDL) which the Council does not dispute. As the site comprises a house, garage and associated curtilage outside a built-up area, there is no reason to suggest that it is not PDL.

As set out in the Framework, the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Openness is the absence of development and has both spatial and visual dimensions.

Whilst not specifically relating to the redevelopment of PDL, Policy DM14 states that in assessing whether a development preserves openness, factors including the scale, mass, height and volume of the proposed development and the extent of existing development on the site will be taken into account.

The new house would be bulkier than the existing building, particularly given the increased eaves height and introduction of half dormers and two storey projecting gable, which would be evident in views from the nearby lane and neighbouring land. However, it would replace an existing house in a similar position with a comparable sized footprint and only a slightly higher ridge. In these circumstances, the proposed scheme would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposal falls within the exception in paragraph 154(g) of the Framework. As such, it would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, having regard to the Framework and Policy RE2 of the LPP1.

The Framework seeks to significantly boost housing supply, highlights the important contribution small and medium sized sites can make, and promotes sustainable development in rural areas whilst supporting development which makes efficient use of land. It sets out a need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which is reflected in local planning policies. The proposal would not increase the overall housing supply, but would provide a larger, more energy efficient family home which is a limited benefit of the scheme.

The occupier of a nearby farm supports the proposed development, but this does not alter my conclusion that it would fail to conserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the NL.

There are comparisons between the scale of the proposed building and the previously refused scheme for a larger house. I note that the existing dwelling has since been extended. Nevertheless, I have determined the proposal on its merits based on the information before me.

The appellant refers to the Bramley Neighbourhood Plan (NP) made in 2022, but the Council did not rely on any NP policies in its decision on the application.

The Council did not find harm or development plan conflict in relation to several other matters, including the principle of a replacement dwelling, living conditions, highway safety, flood risk, ecology and landscaping. However, even if I were to agree with the Council on these points, the absence of harm would be a neutral matter which would not carry weight in favour of the proposed scheme.

Although the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, it would fail to conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the NL. This is a planning harm which should be given great weight. The delivery of a larger, more energy efficient family home attracts limited weight and the remaining matters only neutral weight, which accordingly do not outweigh the harm I have found.

Consequently, the proposal would conflict with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.