Appeal 6005279

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues in this appeal are: • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area, having particular regard to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of the Surrey Hills National Landscape (formerly Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and Area of [name]; • 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 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 appeal site forms part of the extensive grounds of [site address] , lying adjacent to [site address] and opposite [address]. It previously accommodated a coach house for which a certificate of lawful use or development as a self-contained dwelling was granted by the Council in 20051. This has since been removed and apart from a small outbuilding, the site now largely comprises 1 Ref : WA/2005/1578 grassed land and part of the access driveway. There is a roadside boundary wall with some planting on the verge separating the wall from the country lane.

The site lies within the Surrey Hills National Landscape (NL) and Area of [name] (AGLV). There is a statutory duty to seek to further the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the NL. Further, 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.

There is limited built development immediately alongside this section of [site address] . Although the upper part of the sizeable [site address] is visible from the public realm, the largely undeveloped appeal site in front of it and roadside planting create a spacious and verdant landscape setting. Development adjacent to [address] largely consists of compact traditional brick houses facing the road. The openness of the appeal site, its leafy lane setting and the grain of development along [address] positively contribute to the special qualities of the NL and AGLV.

The proposal is for a two-storey dwelling with a substantial sized attached garage, workshop and store in a courtyard style single storey building, resulting in a building exceeding 27m wide. The existing small outbuilding would be retained.

The proposed building would have a traditional appearance, and the NL Planning Adviser is not concerned about the proposal. Nevertheless, because of its considerable width, the new structure would have a substantial, elongated frontage, discordant with the compact built form of dwellings fronting [address] nearby.

The new structure would be largely seen against the backdrop of [site address] . However, due to its sizeable footprint and spread of built form across a substantial part of the area in front of the existing dwelling, the proposal would introduce a significant amount of built development. This would be at odds with the open, verdant character of the landscape along this part of [site address] .

The boundary wall would provide some screening, but the proposed roofs would be visible above it, and because of their extent they would appear dominant in views from the lane and in south facing views from [address]. Whilst existing roadside vegetation would screen parts of the new building, this is largely outside the site and could be removed, become damaged or diseased and may only provide some screening in the spring and summer months.

As such, the proposal would conflict with Policy P3 of the Surrey Hills Management Plan 2020 – 2025 which requires proposals to respect local distinctiveness and be complementary in form and scale with their surroundings.

The parties refer to an extant permission for a dwelling in a similar position on the site granted by the Council in 20252. There is a real prospect that this would be implemented in the event of this appeal failing, and this represents a fallback position. However, whilst the proposed house would be smaller than the approved dwelling with a reduced bulk at first floor level, the approved scheme did not include the extensive garage, workshop and store now proposed. Overall, the proposed building would be substantially larger and have a significantly different 2 Planning application ref : WA/2024/02427 ‘the extant permission/approved scheme/approved dwelling’ built form to the approved scheme, introducing a more domestic, developed appearance to the frontage and appearing incongruous in the landscape.

Consequently, I conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, failing to conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the NL and AGLV. 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 Local Plan Part 2: Site Allocations and Development Management Policies 2023 (LPP2). Together, these seek to protect areas of landscape value, including the NL and AGLV, 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 area within the Green Belt identified in the Council’s Local Plan. Policy RE2 of the LPP1 seeks to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development in accordance with the Framework.

Paragraphs 154 and 155 of the Framework list the types of development that are not inappropriate in the Green Belt, subject to certain conditions. Policy DM14 of the LPP2 also sets out criteria for extensions, alterations, replacement buildings and limited infilling in the Green Belt.

The proposed dwelling and attached garage and equipment store would not provide a building for agriculture and forestry nor for outdoor sport and recreation under paragraphs 154(a) and 154(b) of the Framework. Further, as there is currently no structure on the site, the proposed scheme would not involve the replacement of a building under paragraph 154(d) of the Framework or Policy DM14 of the LPP2.

There is reference to the replacement dwelling at [site address] approved by the Council in 20193 not having been fully implemented, including a front wing projection containing garaging. The appellant indicates that the proposed garage/workshop element would be related to the use of [site address] , and if treated as an extension to that dwelling it would meet the requirements of Policy DM14 of the LPP2. Paragraph 154(c) of the Framework allows the extension of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. As the proposal is for a new dwelling with a garage and workshop attached, regardless of which occupants would use the latter, the proposal does not fall within the extension exception in paragraph 154(c) of the Framework or Policy DM14 of the LPP2.

The definition of grey belt in the Framework excludes land where the application of the policies relating to NL would provide a strong reason for refusing development. This was considered by the [address] in a case where the Inspector had found that a proposal for a truck stop facility at Wrotham would not provide a strong reason to refuse that scheme4. I have found that the proposal would harm the NL and given the scale and location of the proposed development, this would provide a strong reason for refusing the appeal scheme. Consequently, the proposed 3 Planning application ref : WA/2019/0671 4 Wrotham Parish Council v SSHCLG [2026] EWHC 165 (Admin) development would not utilise grey belt land and would thus not fall within the exception in paragraph 155 of the Framework.

There is no case made that the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt for any other reasons. As such, I find that the appeal proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

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 counterpart of urban sprawl and often connotates the absence of development. It is an open textured term and can have both spatial and visual dimensions.

The site contains a modest outbuilding and is primarily grassed and undeveloped land. As the site is currently predominantly open, the introduction of a dwelling together with the attached workshop, store and large garage would inevitably lead to a loss of spatial openness.

The boundary wall along the lane would screen the lower parts of the building in views from the nearby roads. If retained, the roadside landscaping could provide screening when the shrubs and trees are in full leaf, though this could not be relied upon long term. Nevertheless, the first floor of the dwelling and building roofs would be visible from [site address] and [address]. Therefore, the built development would also impact on visual openness.

The effect on openness is not only related to the size of the proposal but also its purpose and the intensity of its use. The introduction of a dwelling on the site would result in the creation of an additional garden and domestic paraphernalia. Further, a new driveway and hardstanding would be formed and used for the manoeuvring, turning and parking of vehicles associated with an additional house. Such features and activities would also harm spatial and visual openness compared to the existing use of the site.

The Framework seeks to significantly boost the housing supply and highlights the important contribution small and medium sized sites can make. The appellant indicates that the Council currently has a 1.28 year housing land supply, significantly less than the five years required by the Framework. The proposal would contribute one self-build home to the supply of housing, making some difference to addressing the substantial housing shortfall in Waverley. Therefore, I attribute moderate weight to this benefit in this instance.

As set out above, the extant permission for the erection of a house on the site represents a realistic fallback position should this appeal be dismissed. There are significant differences in the size and form of the approved scheme compared to the one currently before me. The approved dwelling was found to not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, meeting an exception in Policy DM14 of the LPP2, and to enhance the NL compared to the previous building on the site. In contrast, the proposal before me would fail to conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the NL and AGLV, be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and harm the spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt. Thus, I give the fallback position limited weight.

It is indicated that previously there was limited maintenance or management of the wider estate, with reliance placed on outside contractors to carry this out. The new owner has identified a need for garage and storage buildings for various equipment and vehicles needed to maintain the wider land which would potentially reduce traffic movements. Whilst there is no reason to doubt that a building for storing maintenance equipment is required, there is no substantive evidence that a building of the size and in the location proposed is the only means of providing such storage. Consequently, I accord this matter limited weight.

The Council did not find harm or development plan conflict in relation to several other matters, including living conditions, trees, biodiversity, drainage, highway safety, carbon reduction, and impacts on heritage assets. Nevertheless, 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.

The Framework indicates that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. There would also be adverse impacts on its openness and harm to the character and appearance of the area. Substantial weight should be given to the harm caused to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt and any other harm are clearly outweighed by other considerations.

I accord moderate weight to the provision of a self-build home and limited weight to the fallback position and the need for storage for maintenance equipment. However, the other considerations do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and other harm. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the proposed development do not exist. As such, it would be contrary to Policy RE2 of the LPP1 and the Framework.

Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged as the Council is currently unable to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply. In such circumstances, this states that development should be approved unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas of particular importance provides a strong reason for refusing the development. In this appeal, the application of the Framework’s NL and Green Belt policies provide strong reasons to refuse the development. The proposal would also conflict with Policies RE2, RE3 and TD1 of the LPP1 and Policies DM1 and DM4 of the LPP2.

Consequently, the proposal conflicts with the development plan as a whole and the material considerations, including the Framework and the very special circumstances test therein, do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. Therefore, the appeal should be dismissed.