Appeal 6006584

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposed development 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 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.

The appeal site is located within the Green Belt. Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate 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 DM18 of the Elmbridge Development Management Plan (2015) (EDMP) reflects the Framework insofar as it only permits extensions to buildings in the Green Belt which would not increase the footprint or volume of a building by more than 25% above the size of the original building.

The appeal property is a detached house that has been extended to the rear and side. The proposed ground floor extension would extend behind the rear of the 2- storey side extension, level with the rear building line of the ground floor extension. Appeal Decision: 6006584

According to the appellant’s calculations, the proposed development would, in combination with the previous extensions, increase the footprint of the house from its original size by 37.7 sqm. This would represent a 46.25% increase. Also, the proposed extension with existing additions would enlarge the volume of the building from its original size of 538 cubic metres by 182.8 cubic metres, a 34% increase. The Council accepts these calculations. These figures are above 25% as referred to in EDMP policy DM18 and both parties agree that the proposal would lead to disproportionate additions to the size of the original building. There is no claim made that the proposal would fall within any of the other exceptions as listed in the Framework or under EDMP policy DM18. Therefore, the proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt and it would conflict with part (a) of Policy DM.18 of the EDMP.

Although the cumulative increase in volume and footprint would exceed the policy requirements, the proposed development is for a relatively modest extension. Its side and rear wall would be level with that of the existing extensions effectively squaring off the corner of the house. It would not encroach significantly into the garden or extend as far back as the extension on the neighbouring house. Its spatial impact would, therefore, be limited.

The proposed extension would sit behind the existing 2 storey extension and would only be visible from outside the appeal site above the fence at the rear of the neighbouring house. Its visual impact would, therefore, be negligible and the harm to openness minimal.

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. These will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations. EDMP policy DM18 does not refer to the potential for very special circumstances to exist and so it is inconsistent with the Framework in these regards. However, the Council’s refusal reason refers to very special circumstances and it is necessary to consider whether they exist given the provisions of the Framework.

Other than on Green Belt grounds there are no objections to the proposed extension. However, the absence of harm in other respects is a neutral factor and does not weigh in favour of the scheme, as acceptability in design and amenity terms is to be expected.

The appellant submits that a fallback position under permitted development rights would be more harmful to the Green Belt than the appeal proposal. Indeed, there is a realistic prospect that the appellant may utilise permitted development rights to enlarge their property in the event of the appeal being dismissed. The submissions indicate that permitted development rights would allow the existing rear extension to be extended further to the rear so as to increase the footprint of the building by 55.4 sqm and lead to an increase of 68% compared to the footprint of the original house. Such an extension would also lead to a volumetric increase of 46%. This addition would exceed the size of the appeal proposal and encroach further into the appellant’s rear garden and thus have a greater spatial impact. Also, its visual Appeal Decision: 6006584 impact would be minor as it would be to the rear of the house within an enclosed garden and not visible from the public realm. Nonetheless, despite the limited harm it would have on the openness of the Green Belt, the fallback extension detailed by the appellant would have a greater impact than that of the appeal proposal

The appellant has suggested that a planning condition to remove all Class A permitted development (PD) rights upon implementation of the proposed scheme would prevent the fallback proposal, or other additional extensions, being developed. However, such a condition would only come into effect once the appeal development is commenced. There would be nothing to prevent extensions or other works being carried out to the property under permitted development rights prior to the appeal scheme being implemented. Also, the fallback scheme referred to by the appellant and the appeal development do not overlap and so they could both be constructed. Therefore, the fallback development provides an additional option to enlarge the house rather than an alternative to the appeal scheme. Allowing the appeal would simply permit a further addition to the property over and above the enlargements that could be erected under permitted development rights.

Control over permitted development rights could be achieved through a planning obligation wherein the appellant agrees not to carry out further extensions upon securing planning permission. However, no signed agreement has been provided to me. For these reasons I accord the fallback position limited weight.

The proposal 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 harm that would be caused to the openness of the Green Belt would be very minor and adds only a little weight against allowing the proposal. The other considerations put forward do not clearly outweigh the substantial weight that I give to the harm to the Green Belt. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development do not exist. The proposed extension would not accord with the development plan and there are no other material considerations to outweigh that finding. Therefore, for the reasons given, I conclude the appeal should not succeed.