Agenda item

The Committee considered the above-mentioned full application for demolition of existing front walling and front flue, erection of ground floor infill porch, finished with open oak structure, replacement flue and alterations. 

The Committee received a presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, Lisa Botha.  The application was recommended for refusal.  The site was located inside of the Green Belt and within the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).  The site itself was comprised of a two storey detached house with habitable accommodation within the roof space.  The existing chimney would be replaced by the flue and was in a similar position between the two dormers.  The porch section would be brought forward almost in line with the front wall of the dwelling.  The pitched roof open timber feature would be rebuilt centrally and full height windows installed either side of the entrance door.  The proposed increase in floor area was 11sqm, other internal changes were also shown on the drawing but not subject to this application.

No objections are raised in terms of the impact of the proposal on the scale or character of the area of on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) or Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV).  Furthermore, no objection is raised with regard to neighbouring amenity, however, Policy P2 states that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt constituted inappropriate development unless the building falls within a list of exemptions identified in the NPPF.  P2 goes onto provide definitions to be applied to the specific exceptions which included a definition of the original building, which means either the building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or if no building existed at that time then the first building as it was originally built after this date.  In this instance, the proposal when considered against the existing dwelling was very modest, just 11sqm.  The policy required an extension to be assessed against the original building.  The proposed development therefore represented an increase of approx. 99% over the original dwelling in terms of floor area and as such was indicative of a disproportionate addition. 

The Committee also noted the High Court judgement which endorses the Council’s approach to extensions and as such the correct application of the policy has been applied.  In this instance and consequently the proposed development as an increase of approx. 99% over that of the original dwelling would result in a disproportionate addition within the Green Belt which by definition is harmful.  The application was therefore recommended for refusal. 

The Chairman permitted Councillor Catherine Young to speak in her capacity as ward councillor for three minutes.    

The Committee considered concerns raised that the application was a minor development that warranted approval.  The proposal would have no impact upon neighbouring amenities or result in overlooking or a loss of light.  The proposal was not an overbearing feature and would not have a detrimental impact upon the character of the local area.  The proposal did meet with policy D1 place-shaping which produced a high quality design which responded well to the local character and landscape setting.  It also met with policy H5 which stated that residential extension and alterations should not have any impact on immediate and adjacent buildings.  There had also been no objections from any consultees, including the local parish council and the AONB Officer.

Planning officers confirmed that the relevant policy was P2 of Part 1 of the adopted Local Plan which mirrored closely what the NPPF required the Committee to consider.  Paragraph 149 of the NPPF stated hat a local planning authority should have regard to the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in the Green Belt.  Exceptions to this were as per subsection C, the extension or alteration of a building, provided that it did not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.  The proposal was relatively minor, however the test was with regard to whether it represented a disproportionate addition and at 99% increase over the original building was what had to be considered.  Planning officers considered that the cumulative impact would result in a disproportionate addition and it must therefore be regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  No very special circumstances existed in this case, none had been put forward by the applicant and planning officers had not identified any.  The harm caused must therefore be given substantial weight.   

The Committee considered the application and noted that the existing building was already 94% larger than the original building onsite.  Previous planning approvals onsite had already permitted such extensions and increases in the overall size of the property to take place.  If considered in that context the proposal represented a 5% increase.  The technical argument, whilst policy compliant was not an exercise of common sense.

Planning officers confirmed that whilst there was planning history associated with the extension of this property, the Committee had to consider the NPPF which has been in place since 2012 and the adoption of the Local Plan in 2019.  It was the Committee’s duty to determine applications in line with these documents.  Unfortunately, common sense was not a material consideration.  The Committee was also reminded that the Council had just successfully challenged an Inspector’s decision in which he did not consider the original building size as per policy P2.  The High Court agreed with the Council’s interpretation and quashed the Inspector’s decision.            

A motion was moved and seconded to approve the application which was carried.

In conclusion, having taken account of the representations received in relation to this application, the Committee;

RESOLVED to refuse application 22/P/01770 for the reasons as detailed in the report.