Appeal 6006069

The appeal is dismissed insofar as it relates to the erection of a first-floor front extension over a new open timber porch and the erection of a new detached garage.

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for insofar as it relates to the single storey rear extension and conversion of existing garage into habitable accommodation at [site address] , [site address] , Worplesdon, Guildford, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/P/01414 and the plans submitted with it, so far as relevant to that part of the development hereby permitted and subject to the following conditions:-

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted (rear extension and garage conversion only) shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 7774A PL- 00, 7774A PL-01, and 7774A-03b.

The materials to be used on the external faces of the approved development shall match the existing dwelling.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Guildford Borough Council and is the subject of a separate Decision.

Under section 79 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 I have express powers to issue a split decision, and have considered the appeal scheme having regard to these powers.

The main issues are: - • whether or not 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 of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. • And, if the proposal is inappropriate development, 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’ which would be necessary to justify it.

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 (2019) (LPSS) seeks to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development and is broadly consistent with the Framework. It also confirms that the original building is that as it existed on 1 July 1948 or the first building as it was originally built.

Neither the Framework nor policy P2 define ‘disproportionate additions’, and it is therefore a matter of judgement. As the Council’s Green Belt Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) sets out, the assessment is case-by-case and based on various factors, not just percentage increases in floor area, thereby allowing for some flexibility. It is, however, an assessment against the original building, not the existing one.

While the Council and the appellant offer different measurements in terms of the existing and proposed extensions, the Council’s figure of 93sqm for the floor area of the original house is not disputed.

The Council suggest that, together with the previous extensions, the proposal would result in a cumulative increase of 205%. The appellant has figures of a 3.4% uplift to the house and 13.7% with the inclusion of the proposed garage; however, these are measured against the existing building, not the original.

The appellant also advises that the Council’s figures for the size of the garage and extensions are incorrect. The differences in each case are small (no more than 5 sqm) and are not of a scale that would change the position in relation to disproportionate additions.

[site address] as it exists benefits from a number of extensions and the appellant acknowledges that the increase is very large when measured against the original building. The property sits within a large plot and is a relatively low-level building. Nonetheless, the proposal would increase the property's volume, with bulk added to the roof and a new garage building in front. While detached, the garage would be in close proximity and, for the purposes of this assessment, and having regard to the case law referenced by the Council1, it would form an extension. As such, taken together, and cumulatively with the previous extensions, the proposed development cannot be considered anything other than a disproportionate addition.

There are, however, two aspects of the development which in themselves do not directly add to the property. The garage conversion utilises existing space which is integral to the building and the rear extension directly replaces the existing conservatory. There would be a minimal increase in the width of the extension to align with the main side elevation, and, with matching materials, it would better integrate with the property as a whole. The changes to the external appearance and the very minor alterations would not change the existing scale of the dwelling; therefore, I do not find that these elements would amount to disproportionate additions.

The remainder of the proposed development would not, however, taken as a whole, fall within exception (c) and would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would therefore be contrary to paragraph 154 of the Framework and LPSS Policy P2. In accordance with the Framework, such development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Separately, the garage conversion and the proposed rear extension would not be inappropriate development and would accord with the exception and Policy P2.

With regard to the two elements found not to be inappropriate development, it is not necessary to consider openness.

The rest of the proposal would have a spatial impact on the extent and spread of the built form. Primarily located to the front, there would be visual changes to the scale of the property as a result of the development. The property is, however, set back, and in the context of the site, the form of the neighbouring properties and existing landscaping, the overall impact on the wider appearance of the Green Belt would be limited. Nonetheless, there would be marked localised harm to the visual and spatial openness of the Green Belt from the additional built form. Accordingly, it adds to the harm to the Green Belt.

The appeal property is accessed off [site address] , with the track comprising sporadic development which varies in design, scale and form. The appeal property has dormers to the front and rear and is a low-level building compared to its neighbours. In particular, the adjoining property, [address], has accommodation over three floors and a forward projection along the shared boundary with [name]. The proposed garage would be located adjacent to this, and other properties in the locality have detached garages/outbuildings, including at the front. 1 Warwick District Council v Secretary of State for [name], Housing and Communities [2022] EWHC 2145 (Admin) – referenced in the Council’s Green Belt, Supplementary Planning Document, November 2023

I agree with the Council that the garage and the rear extension, which would replace the existing conservatory, are not out of keeping with the character of the property or the area. The Council's concern is with the alterations to the frontage, where a proposed gable feature would replace one of the dormers and create an extended porch. With glazing on the upper section and extending up to the ridgeline, it would be a prominent feature and alter the property's appearance. However, it would not increase the property's height. It would also be proportionate to its existing width, and there is a similar, albeit deeper, existing projection to the rear.

The alteration would deviate from the existing design and add vertical emphasis, giving the property a more two-storey appearance. This would not be out of keeping with the area, and the oak-framed, glazed design would be a high-quality addition. The existing property does not exhibit any special architectural merit, and the proposal would enable an internal reconfiguration with only a limited increase in the property's scale. With existing vegetation to the front of the plot along the edge of the road, full views of the property are limited to the driveway.

Reference is made to specific elements of the Council’s Residential Extensions and [name] 2018, such as that porches should normally be modest and extensions set down from the ridgeline. This is, however, general guidance to help direct the design of extensions and is to be applied flexibly, with each proposal to be considered on its own merits.

Overall, I find that the alterations would be well balanced, the modern feature would appropriately integrate with the host property and would not be intrusive or incongruous to the street scene. As such, the proposed development would accord with LPSS policies H4 and D4, which together seek high-quality design that responds to the local character, and require extensions to have regard to the existing context, and the scale, height, character, materials, and proportion of the existing building. In that regard, the development would also reflect the general objectives of the SPD and the Framework, which promote development that is sympathetic to local character while not preventing or discouraging appropriate innovation or change.

The appellant refers to potential opportunities under permitted development rights (PD), as a fallback, in particular a rear extension. A key part of the proposal is to increase the number of bedrooms upstairs. These alterations are therefore very different to a rear extension. There is also no evidence before me to indicate that an alternative scheme pursuant to class AA (upward extensions) has detailed construction plans drawn up and would be pursued if planning permission is refused. Prior approval would also be necessary.

Such development is likely to be very different from the current scheme, and, in line with the case law referenced by the appellant, a fallback must be more than a theoretical possibility. Applying for planning permission for this current scheme does not directly imply that other options, in line with different PD provisions, are likely to be implemented, and there are no details to judge whether such an approach would be more harmful. Accordingly, this is a matter to which I give limited weight.

The property has a large landing area to the first floor, and it is somewhat unbalanced with a large ground floor and 2 bedrooms upstairs, but this is part of the existing property's architectural form. The appellant’s desire to reconfigure the property to better meet their family needs is understandable but is primarily a private benefit. It is also indicated that the development will provide environmental improvement with high-quality eco-friendly features, including high-efficiency insulation. Sustainable design and construction are required by LPSS policy D2, and there is no information indicating that these features would exceed the current standards. Even were the features to result in an overall net benefit to the appeal property’s energy consumption, it would be likely to amount to a limited benefit.

The appellant raises concerns with the Council’s handling of the application, which is a separate matter and does not affect the consideration of the merits of the appeal proposal against the development plan and the Framework.

The rear extension and garage conversion are clearly physically and functionally severable from the rest of the proposed development and can be conditions as such. I have express powers to split a decision, and, for the reasons indicated above, I see no reason to withhold planning permission for these aspects.

The alterations would be sympathetic in design and scale to the host property, and I have found no conflict with the character and appearance of the area. Compliance with the development plan in relation to these aspects is, however, a neutral matter as good design is to be expected.

Notwithstanding this, the development as a whole would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The proposal does, however, include two aspects, the rear extension and garage conversion, which do not directly contribute to the further additions, effectively being replacements, and which would not form disproportionate additions, and would not impact on the Green Belt.

The rest of the proposed development would be harmful to the Green Belt. The harm is definitional, derived from the cumulative impact of previous development, and there would be a spatial change to openness, albeit limited. In accordance with the Framework, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt.

Even taken together, the other considerations put forward provide little support for this part of the scheme. Therefore, they do not outweigh the harm to the Green Belt, and very special circumstances do not exist. The proposed development (first-floor front extension over a new open timber porch and the erection of a new detached garage) would therefore fail to accord with Green Belt policy within the Framework and LPSS policy P2 and would conflict with the development plan as a whole.

With regard to the development to be allowed, I have imposed conditions for clarity and certainty in relation to the timescale for development and the plans. Additionally, in the interest of the appearance of the property, a condition requires that the external materials match the existing building.

Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is allowed insofar as it relates to the single-storey rear extension and the conversion of the existing garage. It is dismissed insofar as it relates to the erection of a first-floor front extension over a new open timber porch and the erection of a new detached garage.