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