18/P/01247 Heatherview, Farley Green, Albury

App No: 18/P/01247 8 Wk Deadline: 20/08/2018Appn Type: Full ApplicationCase Officer: Becky SouterParish: Albury Ward: TillingbourneAgent : Mr Gratton

ArchitectureliveTall TreesThe CylindersHaslemereGU27 3EL

Applicant: Mr EdwardsHeatherviewFarley GreenAlburyGU5 9DN

Location: Heatherview, Farley Green, Albury, Guildford, GU5 9DNProposal: Proposed rear extension of smallholding office and new equipment

shed.

Executive Summary

Reason for referral

This application has been referred to the Planning Committee because more than 10 letters ofsupport have been received, contrary to the Officer's recommendation.

Key information

The proposal relates to the construction of a detached outbuilding and an extension to an existingoutbuilding.

The proposed outbuilding would measure:

7.2 metres in width4.0 metres in depth4.45 metres in height

The proposed extension to an existing outbuilding would measure:

2.76 metres in width3.69 metres in depth3.83 metres in height

There is an extant scheme for a first floor rear extension and replacement conservatory(approved September 2017) currently under construction, this proposal requires demolition ofexisting outbuildings to offset Green Belt harm.

Summary of considerations and constraints

The main consideration relates to the impact of the proposal on the Green Belt. The proposalwould substantially increase the floor area of the original dwelling and result in a spread ofdevelopment across the site with the creation of a significant level of additional bulk. There are noissues regarding the impact on the AONB/AGLV, scale and character or neighbouring amenity.The proposal has been shown to represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt, there

are no very special circumstances identified and as such the proposal fails to comply with policiesH9 and RE2 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan, 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on24/09/2007) and is contrary to Chapter 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF),2018.

RECOMMENDATION:

Refuse - for the following reason(s) :-

1. The proposed development would result in a disproportionate addition over andabove the original dwelling, by virtue of the additional bulk, scale and mass of theoutbuilding and extension. Therefore, the proposal represents inappropriatedevelopment in the Green Belt, which is harmful, by definition. In addition, theproposal would add further built form in connection with a dwelling that has alreadybeen enlarged and is being further enlarged contributing to a significant spread ofdevelopment which would be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. No veryspecial circumstances have been proposed. The proposal is therefore contrary topolicies RE2 and H9 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLGDirection 24 September 2007) and the requirements of the National Planning PolicyFramework (NPPF).

Informatives:1. This decision relates expressly to drawings: 1619 AP.00.101; 1619 AP.00.102;

1619 Ap.00.103 Rev A; 1619 AP.40.04 Rev E; 1619 AP.40.05 and 1619AP.40.103 received on 22/06/2018.

2. This statement is provided in accordance with Article 35(2) of the Town andCountry Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015.Guildford Borough Council seek to take a positive and proactive approach todevelopment proposals. We work with applicants in a positive and proactivemanner by:

Offering a pre application advice serviceWhere pre-application advice has been sought and that advice has beenfollowed we will advise applicants/agents of any further issues arising duringthe course of the applicationWhere possible officers will seek minor amendments to overcome issuesidentified at an early stage in the application process

However, Guildford Borough Council will generally not engage in unnecessarynegotiation for fundamentally unacceptable proposals or where significantchanges to an application is required.

Pre-application advice was not sought prior to submission and there are significantobjections to the application that minor alterations would not overcome, it was notconsidered appropriate to seek amendments through the course of this application

Officer's Report

Site description.

The site is located in the Green Belt and outside the identified settlement boundary, in an Area ofOutstanding Natural Beauty and an Area of Great Landscape Value. The property is a two storeysemi-detached cottage situated within a large plot of open land.

Proposal.

Proposed rear extension of small holding office and new equipment shed.

Relevant planning history.

Reference: Description: DecisionSummary:

Appeal:

17/P/01023 Proposed first floor rear extension withinternal alterations and replacementconservatory. Proposed alterations tothe driveway and parking layout.

Approve01/09/2017

N/A

16/P/00578 Certificate of lawfulness for aproposed development to establishwhether a single storey rear extensiontogether with the addition ofutility/garden room, carport workshopand store would constitute permittedDevelopment.

Refuse19/05/2016

N/A

16/P/00142 Certificate of lawfulness for aproposed development to establishwhether a single storey rear extensiontogether with the addition ofutility/garden room, carport workshopand store would constitute permittedDevelopment.

Withdrawn09/03/2016

N/A

15/P/01374 First floor rear extension, single storeyside/rear extension followingdemolition of existing conservatory,rear extension to an existingoutbuilding and alterations to theprivate driveway and parking layout.

Refuse28/09/2015

N/A

13/P/01594 Erection of a replacement houseincluding demolition of existingstudio/outbuilding.(Additional plansubmitted 09.10.2013)

Refuse20/11/2013

N/A

Consultations.

Albury Parish Council: No objection.

Third party comments:

33 letters of support have been received outlining the following positive comments:

The proposed garden shed and the office amenity extension cannot be seen from the roadand are of modest size.The use of renewable energy is commendable.The buildings would undoubtedly serve a useful purpose in supporting a kitchen garden andhousing equipment for renewable energy.The Visual Impact Analysis showed the development works as having no impact on the greenbelt or AONBThe works take up less than 2% of the garden area.Support for the scheme.No objection provided the building in question remains ancillary to the main house and is notused as separate living accommodation.Development required in connection with the management of a small holding.The proposed demolition of three sheds will add to the green space in their garden. [Officernote: No demolition is proposed as part of this application.]The application would retain a dilapidated garage converting it into a shed for storage ofgarden tools. [Officer note: This is an incorrect assumption, the dilapidated garage would bedemolished as part of the extant scheme and a new building constructed.]The owners are trying to run a horticultural project.The work which the present owners are doing on the property is providing a major upgrade toa rundown facility and can only be an asset to the housing stock in Farley Green.

Planning policies.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), 2018:

Chapter 12: Achieving well-designed placesChapter 13: Protecting Green Belt landChapter 15: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment

Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction 24 September 2007):

G1 General Standards of DevelopmentG5 Design CodeH9 Extensions to Dwellings in CountrysideRE1 Extent of the Green BeltRE2 Development Within the Green BeltRE5 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty AONBRE6 Area of Great Landscape Value AGLV

Supplementary planning documents:

Residential Extensions, 2003.

Emerging Local Plan:

Work is ongoing on the emerging Guildford Local Plan. One round of formal public consultationon the Local Plan: Strategy and Sites took place over the summer of 2014, followed by a further(Regulation 19) consultation in June-July 2016. Further work is now taking place to consider thecomments of the respondents, key statutory organisations and to update evidence basedocuments where necessary. The Guildford Borough Submission Local Plan: Strategy and Sites(2017) was submitted to the Secretary of State for Local Government on 13 December 2017 forindependent examination. The examination in public has been completed and the plan foundsound subject to modifications and now carries considerable weight.

Planning considerations.

The main planning considerations in this case are:

the principle of development and the impact on the green beltthe loss of a small dwellingthe impact on the AONB and AGLVthe impact on scale and characterthe impact on neighbouring amenity

The principle of development and the impact on the green belt

The site is located within the Green Belt. The NPPF identifies that new buildings will be deemedinappropriate unless for specific purposes as set out in paragraph 145. Extensions to buildingsare referred to, provided they would not result in a disproportionate enlargement to the originalbuilding. The test of whether there would be a disproportionate enlargement is not an opennesstest nor does it relate to the visual impact of the development. Neither is it a relative assessmentto the size of other buildings in the surrounding area. Instead it requires a quantitativeassessment, factors can include the floor space uplift and three dimensional factors such asfootprint, increases in height, width, depth and building shape. For the purposes of extensions tobuilding the Guildford Local Plan identifies that domestic outbuildings should be considered asextensions and in line with this thinking original outbuildings would also be considered as part ofthe original building. These would include substantial structures such as garages, but notlightweight framed structures such as greenhouses or garden shed type structures. It will oftenrequire a judgement call as to whether a particular outbuilding should be included.

Policies RE2 and H9 of the saved local plan broadly accord with the provisions of the NPPF inthis respect and therefore are considered up to date. Policy P2 of the Emerging Local Planreaffirms this test and is afforded considerable weight.

The application site currently benefits from permission to construct a first floor rear extension andreplacement conservatory, as approved under reference 17/P/01023 detailed in the planninghistory above. This permission has been implemented and significant progress has been made inthe construction with the external walls and roof substantially completed. This approval wascaveated by a condition which required the demolition of three outbuildings and a non-originaloutbuilding extension, prior to the first occupation of the development, this was to ensure that theproposal was acceptable on green belt grounds. Therefore, for the purposes of the floor areaassessment below, the existing dwelling is based upon the dwelling as approved including theremoval of outbuildings.

Original dwelling: 108.8 square metres (including detached outbuilding)

Existing dwelling: 209.2 square metres (including first floor extension, detached (office)outbuilding and former stable outbuilding, excluding outbuildings which are to be removed as partof the consented scheme currently under construction) Proposed additions: 39 square metresProposed dwelling: 248.2 square metresPercentage uplift from original to existing: 92.3% upliftPercentage uplift from original to proposed: 128.1% uplift

The proposal would result in the addition of 39 square metres of external floor area whichrepresents a 128.1% uplift in floor area over the original dwelling, this clearly indicates that theproposal is a disproportionate addition in the green belt. The resultant dwelling would have a floorarea 139.4 square metres greater than the original floor area which is a substantial increase.Floor area is not the only consideration when assessing whether an extension would bedisproportionate, it is also necessary to take into account the increase in bulk and volume of thedwelling. In this case the increase would be significant. The proposed outbuilding would measure4 metres in depth, 7.2 metres in width and 4.45 metres in height featuring a fully pitched roof, twosets of double doors to the front and a single door and double casement window to the side. Theextension would measure 2.76 metres in width, 3.7 metres in depth and 3.8 metres in heightfeaturing a gable end style roof. There would be a clear increase in bulk owing to the mass of thedevelopment, in particular the additional roof form. When the proposal is combined with theprevious extensions to the property including the first floor element under construction theadditional bulk on the site is substantial and would exacerbate the spread of development acrossthe site. The applicant implemented permission for the first floor extension and replacementconservatory in the knowledge that the demolition of the associated outbuildings would berequired. This extant scheme was brought forward on the premise of off-setting harm to the greenbelt by compensating the floor area of the outbuildings for additional floor area on the dwelling.Therefore, the proposed scheme comprising of the construction of an extension to the originaloutbuilding and the construction of a new detached outbuilding at the rear of the site seeks toreinstate a large proportion of this floor area. It is also of note that the greenhouse structureshown to be demolished as part of the scheme under construction is being retained on the siteplan submitted, although because of its lightweight structure less concern is raised in this regard.The fundamental issue is that of the four elements for which demolition has been conditioned thisapplication would result in the removal of only one, the wooden garden shed, which is dilapidatedat present and contributes only 6 square metres of external floor area.

The applicant has made an argument that the proposed outbuilding and the extension arerequired in connection with the management of a small holding. The entire site (0.25 hectares) isshown to form the residential curtilage of the dwelling with no distinction between any identifiedagricultural land. The applicant has applied for the works under a householder application.Following the Officer's site visit there is evidence of some horticultural activity in the northernsection of the site but no livestock are present. The site does include what appears to be aredundant sand school upon which the temporary living accommodation is currently stationed andthe former stables are used for storage purposes. The submitted Design and Access Statementsets out the applicant's requirements in terms of floor area in association with the management ofthe land, including storage of vehicles, equipment, animal feed, garden furniture and plant areasfor renewable energy technologies. The applicant was aware of these storage requirements whensubmitting the previously approved planning application which relied upon the demolition ofoutbuildings and as such upon implementation knew that these outbuildings would have to beremoved. Therefore, this argument does not outweigh any harm to the green belt by virtue ofinappropriate development.

Concern is also raised as to whether the extended outbuilding would remain in an ancillary use orwhether it would actually constitute a change of use. The extended outbuilding would provideoffice space, rest space and facilities for staff, including a utility room, cloak room and bathroom.The Design and Access Statement also makes reference to the office and states that it will beused 'to support the welfare of the people engaged in the rural activities' which indicates that theapplicant may be operating a business from within the site.

Overall, the proposal would encroach on the Green Belt, due to the additional bulk, scale andmass, in connection with a dwelling that has already been enlarged and is currently being furtherenlarged. Therefore, the proposal is found to be inappropriate development, which is, bydefinition, harmful to the green belt and as such is contrary to policy H9 of the saved Local Planas well as the NPPF. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated to justify theproposal.

Therefore, the proposal fails to comply with policies RE2 and H9 of the Guildford Borough LocalPlan, 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction 24/09/2007) and paragraph 143 of the NPPF, 2018.

The loss of a small dwelling

The existing dwelling has a gross internal floor space which is above 85 square metres andtherefore the proposal would not result in the loss of a small dwelling. The proposal thereforecomplies with policy H9 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan, 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction 24September 2007).

The impact on the AONB and AGLV

Notwithstanding the above concerns regarding the Green Belt, the proposal would be set within amuch wider residential plot and by virtue of the scale and design of the proposed extensions,which would not be widely visible within the surrounding area and as such would not result in anyharm to either the AONB or AGLV. Therefore, the proposal complies with policies RE5 and RE6of the Guildford Borough Local Plan, 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction 24/09/2007).

The impact on scale and character

The proposal relates to the construction of a new outbuilding, to be used for equipment storage,and an extension to an existing outbuilding, to provide utility and bathroom facilities. The scale ofthe proposal would be appropriate when compared to the scale of the existing (extended)property and associated plot. The proposed extension would be constructed in materials to matchthe existing outbuilding, therefore, ensuring a consistency in design. The detached outbuildingwould be constructed from materials of an appropriate nature to the rural character of the site.

Consideration must also be given to the impact of the proposal on the character and appearanceof the surrounding area. The detached outbuilding would be set toward the rear boundary of thesite and as such would not be visible from within the street scene. The proposed extension to theexisting outbuilding would be predominantly screened from the street scene by the existingoutbuilding. Owing to the proposed location of outbuilding and the extension, the proposal wouldnot have any unacceptable impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

Therefore, the proposal complies with policies H9 and G5 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan,2003 (as saved by CLG Direction on 24/09/2007).

The impact on neighbouring amenity

The closest neighbouring properties are The Cottage, the immediate adjoining property to thenorth of the application site, and Highfold, the immediate neighbouring property to the south ofthe application site. The proposed outbuilding and extension to an existing outbuilding would beset well away from these neighbouring properties. Therefore, the proposal would not result in anyunacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity, in terms of loss of light, loss of privacy oroverbearing impact.

The proposal is found to be compliant with policies H9 and G1(3) of the Guildford Borough LocalPlan, 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction 24/09/2007).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the proposal, by virtue of the additional floor area, bulk and volume in connectionwith a dwelling that has already been enlarged and is currently being further enlarged, wouldconstitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This form of development by definition isharmful to the Green Belt and as such justifies refusal of this application. The proposal fails tocomply with both national and local policies and, as a whole, is considered to be unacceptable.