Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 5 August 2008
The Planning Inspectorate
4/11 Eagle Wing
Temple Quay House
2 The Square
Temple Quay
Bristol BS1 6PN
MRTPI
0117 372 6372
email:enquiries@pins.gsi.g
ov.uk
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
for Communities and Local Government
Decision date:
22 August 2008
by Philip Crookes
BSc (Hons) DipTP
Appeal Ref: APP/Y3615/A/08/2070892
Home Farm Cottage, Rokers Lane, Shackleford, Surrey GU8 6AF
•
•
•
•
The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Mr J Forsyth against the decision of Guildford Borough Council.
The application Ref 08/P00004, dated 19 December 2007, was refused by notice dated
12 March 2008.
The development proposed is extension of existing house.
Decision
1. I allow the appeal and grant planning permission for extension of existing
house at Home Farm Cottage, Rokers Lane, Shackleford, Surrey GU8 6AF in
accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 08/P00004, dated 19
December 2007, and the plans submitted with it subject to the following
conditions:
1)
The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years
from the date of this decision.
2)
The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of
the extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing
building.
Preliminary matter
2. The Council’s decision notice also refers to “demolition of part of existing utility
and boot room”. For clarity, the appeal scheme proposes no general
demolition but involves an outward extension of the existing building.
Main issue
3. The appeal site lies within the Metropolitan Green Belt. The main issue is
whether the proposed development constitutes inappropriate development in
the Green Belt and, if so, whether there are any very special circumstances
sufficient to clearly outweigh the presumption against such development.
Reasons
4. Home Farm Cottage is a recently built (2002) house of traditional style situated
at the east end of an unmade private road, Rokers Lane. It replaced a pair of
semi-detached houses that formerly existed on the site. In 2006 planning
permission was granted for adjoining stables and associated yard. This was
Appeal Decision APP/Y3615/A/08/2070892
completed in 2006/07. In 2007 a further planning permission was granted for
a garage and store between the house and the stables. This has recently been
completed.
5. In terms of policy guidance, at national level PPG2 states, in paragraph 1.4,
that the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness. There is a
general presumption against inappropriate development within them
(paragraph 3.1) and the construction of new buildings inside a Green Belt is
inappropriate unless, for example, it is for the limited extension of an existing
dwelling (paragraph 3.4). Paragraph 3.6 of PPG2 further advises that such
extensions to dwellings should not result in a disproportionate addition over
and above the size of the original building. Replacement dwellings which are
not materially larger than the building being replaced need not be
inappropriate.
6. Policies RE2 and H9 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 are consistent
with national guidance with the addition that, unlike PPG2, paragraph 5.40 in
the explanatory text to Policy H9, provides a definition of “Original Building”.
The latter means the dwelling and domestic outbuildings as existing on 1 July
1948; or if no dwelling existed on that date then “original building” means the
dwelling as first built after 1 July 1948 excluding any extensions or outbuildings
built after completion of the dwelling.
7. The main difference between the parties is the identification of the “original
building” against which to assess whether the proposed extension would be
proportionate when applying Local Plan Policy H9. The Council considers the
original building comprises the two semi-detached dwellings that, undisputedly,
stood on the site at 1 July 1948 and were demolished when the present house
was built. The appellant’s view is that it should relate to the replacement
dwelling now on the site.
8. In support of its position the Council has referred to three appeal decisions at
Foxholes, Farley Green (2 decisions) and Waysend at Send. In the Foxholes
case the Inspector’s came to the conclusion that the original dwelling is that
which existed prior to the replacement dwelling and, whilst not so clear cut, the
Inspector in the case of Waysend stated “ in floorspace terms I cannot avoid
the conclusion that the proposal would result in a dwelling becoming
disproportionately larger than the replacement dwelling permitted in 1978, let
along the dwelling initially on site”(my emphasis). The Council therefore
submits that, in that case, there was a clear inference that the size of the
replaced dwelling was taken as a relevant consideration of the “original
building”
9. I do not doubt that the Council’s interpretation of “original building” in the
present case would be consistent with the appeal decisions quoted. However,
the appellant has drawn my attention to a sizeable number of other appeal
decisions, albeit not in Guildford, where Inspectors have taken a different view
and considered that the assessment of whether extensions are “limited” and
“proportionate” should relate to the replacement dwelling. I appreciate that
since PPG2 gives no precise guidance as to what should constitute the “original
dwelling” referred to in paragraph 3.6 different interpretations are possible.
2
Appeal Decision APP/Y3615/A/08/2070892
10. With reference to PPG2, I note that the Inspector in the second Foxholes
appeal in 2007 (APP/Y3615/A/07/2033309) reasoned, logically in my view, that
if a replacement dwelling is not to be materially larger than the building it
replaces; and extensions to existing should not be disproportionately larger;
similarly limitations thus apply in both cases. In circumstances where a
replacement dwelling has been erected, I therefore see no need for the
proportionality of extensions to be assessed against the size of the former
dwelling. The Inspector therefore took the view that the reference to original
building in paragraph 3.6 of PPG2 is the building as erected and which is to be
extended. He went on to proffer the opinion that reference to ‘original’ is
italicised in PPG2 to distinguish it from the building as extended, and its
purpose is therefore to encourage authorities to take account of the cumulative
impact of successive extensions.
11. I am mindful that the Inspector in the Foxholes (2) case went on to dismiss the
appeal having come to the view that the guidance in Policy H9 of the Local Plan
adapted the advice in PPG2 to local circumstances to require an assessment of
disproportionality or otherwise to relate to the former building, as on site on 1
July 1948.
12. I do not dismiss my colleagues’ conclusion lightly, and recognise that he had
considerable doubt about how local plan guidance was meant to be applied
(paragraph 7 of the decision). It seems to me however that the reference to
“original building” in paragraph 5.40 of Local Plan Policy H9 does not
necessarily imply a different interpretation to that gleaned from PPG2. It
seems to me that its inclusion is to ensure that the cumulative impact of
successive extensions is taken into account in order that the openness of the
Green Belt is not eroded by a series of individually small developments. Thus,
in this case, I regard the original building is not necessarily that which exists at
present but rather that which existed prior to any extensions taking place after
1 July 1948 or, if later, after its first construction. In other words, applied to
the current case, the original building is the replacement dwelling as built in
2002 rather than a previous building that no longer exists. This approach is
consistent with three High Court judgements to which I have been referred by
the appellant and which were apparently not put before the previous Inspectors
in earlier cases. The High Court judgements are Brentwood Borough Council-vThe Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and Mr
I Churley (September 1999, CO1220/99), and Ascot Wood Limited-v-Secretary
of State for the Environment and Others (2000, PLCR3), and Sevenoaks District
Council-v-Secretary of State for the Environment and J Clarke (QB 1997
CO/1027/97).
13. in the first of these, in considering the matter of the original dwelling, HH
Judge Rich considered that comparison with the original dwelling did not take
one back to the original habitable floorspace of some dwelling which no longer
existed because it had been replaced. A similar conclusion was reached by Mr
Nigel Macleod QC in the Ascot Woods case where he recognised that sufficient
ambiguity existed to exclude a finding that the words of PPG2 could not
exclude a finding that ‘original building’ meant going back to a previous
building on the site. However, he considered that there were very compelling
reasons for accepting the interpretation that the term original building can only
apply to a building which exists. In the final case, (Sevenoaks) Mr G Moriaty
3
Appeal Decision APP/Y3615/A/08/2070892
QC found that “Reference..to the “original” dwelling must on any commonsense
reading…. refer to the existing building before any extension, i.e. to the
replacement dwelling and not to an earlier dwelling that no longer exists.”
14. There is a further consideration that leads me to my conclusion on this
question and that is the matter of proportionality. In my opinion, whether an
extension is disproportionate or not cannot only be concerned with its footprint
in relation to the original building. Other factors, mass, bulk, height, design
must also be taken into account if this question is to be fully answered. The
question is incapable of being answered if proportionality is to be assessed
against some earlier building that no longer exists. This lends support to the
view that the term “original building” should not apply to one that no longer
exists.
15. I must consider the cumulative impact of all extensions at the property, as to
do otherwise would result in new buildings being incrementally constructed
over the years thereby defeating the purpose of Green Belt protection. The
original building as defined above has been recently extended by a detached
garage/store of approximately 33sq.m within its curtilage. The proposed
extension would add a further 33.3sq.m. Together the existing and proposed
extensions increase the floorspace of the original building by some 22.8%. In
this I have excluded the store attached to the garage as this is open sided and,
to my mind would not add floorspace that would reduce openness. On a
strictly statistical basis, I do not consider an increase in floorspace of
approximately 23% to be excessive or disproportionate. I turn next therefore
to consider whether by its overall design the extension would appear
disproportionate to the original dwelling and in turn what would be its visual
impact on the Green Belt, the AONB and the AGLV in which is lies.
16. The proposed two storey extension would be on the eastern side of the house.
The house itself fits naturally into the countryside and the surrounding
landform, its prominence being restrained by its situation below Rokers Lane,
the presence of hedgerows and the general absence of significant public
viewpoints in the immediate vicinity. The extension would add a two storey
hipped roof structure some 4 metres in length by about 6 metres wide. Overall
the extension would add relatively little bulk to the parent property and, at first
floor level this would be limited by the reduced ridge height (compared to the
existing ridge) and the hipped roof. The proposed design, including materials,
would blend in with the design context and features expressed by the existing
house. The Council does not appear to disagree with this.
17. Overall, I conclude that the proposal would not result in a visually
disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. The
proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and would
comply with Government advice in PPG2 and with policies RE2 and H9 of the
Local Plan. The satisfactory integration of the extension with the parent
building also means that the scheme would not cause harm to the visual
qualities of the AONB of AGLV that are protected through Local Plan Policies
RE5 and RE6 respectively.
18. I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council. I agree that control
over materials is necessary to ensure that the extension is assimilated into its
surroundings, including the parent property
4
Appeal Decision APP/Y3615/A/08/2070892
Philip Crookes
INSPECTOR
5