17/P/01023 – Heatherview, Farley Green, Albury

Not to scale

App No: 17/P/01023 8 Wk Deadline: 04/07/2017Appn Type: Full ApplicationCase Officer: Becky SouterParish: Albury Ward: TillingbourneAgent : Mr Gratton

ArchitectureliveTall TreesThe CylindersFernhurstGU27 3EL

Applicant: Mr. EdwardsHeatherviewFarley GreenAlburyGU5 9DN

Location: Heatherview, Farley Green, Albury, Guildford, GU5 9DNProposal: Proposed first floor rear extension with internal alterations and

replacement conservatory. Proposed alterations to the drivewayand parking layout.

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 first floor extension and single storey side/rearextension to replace the existing conservatory.

The proposal also includes changes to the parking arrangements on site allowing for theprovision of two parking spaces, whilst utilising the existing vehicular access.

The first floor extension would measure:

8 metres in width3.9 metres in depth5.65 metres in height

The single storey side/rear extension would measure:

2.6 metres in width6 metres in depth3.5 metres in height

Summary of considerations and constraints

The main consideration relates to the impact of the proposal on the openness of the green belt.The proposal suggests the demolition of existing non-original outbuildings, to offset the additionaluplift in floor area and reduce the spread of development, however, these structures are notcomparable to the significant extensions, whilst, the most substantial structure would be retainedin the corner of the site. There are no issues regarding the impact on scale and character,neighbouring amenity or parking. The proposal has been shown to represent inappropriatedevelopment in the Green Belt, there are no very special circumstances identified and as such

the proposal fails to comply with policies H9 or RE2 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan, 2003(as saved by CLG Direction 24/09/2007).

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 substantial bulk, which representsinappropriate development in the Green Belt, which is harmful, by definition. Inaddition, the proposal would result in an increase in the bulk, particularly at firstfloor level, mass, scale and footprint of the dwelling, which would be harmful to theopenness of the Green Belt. No very special circumstances have been proposed.The proposal is therefore contrary to policies RE2 and H9 of the GuildfordBorough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction 24 September 2007) andthe requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Informatives:1. This decision relates expressly to drawings: 1619 AP 00.01; 1619 AP 00.02; 1619

AP 00.03; 1619 AP 00.10; 1619 AP 10.01; 1619 AP 10.02; 1619 AP 11.01; 1619AP 11.02; 1619 AP 40.01 and 1619 AP 40.02 received on 09/05/2017.

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.

In this case pre-application advice was sought and provided which addressedpotential issues and suggested alternative options for enlarging the property,advising that this proposal would be unlikely to gain officer approval owing to theGreen Belt constraints on the site. However, the application has not beensubmitted in accordance with that advice, the application was considered to beunacceptable and no further amendments were sought.

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 first floor rear extension with internal alterations and replacement conservatory.Proposed alterations to the driveway and parking layout.

Relevant planning history.

Reference: Description: DecisionSummary:

Appeal:

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.

Non-statutory consultees

Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Officer: No objection.

Parish Council

Albury Parish Council: No objection.

Third party comments:

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

Sensible and modest schemeAllow for installation of central heating, essential for the 21st centuryImproving sustainability and energy efficiencyThe house requires refurbishmentDevelopment to the rear so the front elevation remains virtually unalteredNegligible loss of amenity spaceThe existing rear elevation and conservatory are unattractive and in poor conditionThe rebuilding / reconfiguration will result in a more attractive property which will enhance thecharacter of this cottage, and will stop it from falling into disrepairThe actual amount of physical extension / footprint is tiny in comparison to the 1 acre plot onwhich it stands, and therefore the effect on the Green Belt and amenity is negligibleThe proposal will bring the house into the 21st century, whilst being in keeping with thesurrounding areaThe changes will remedy some unattractive elements and enhance the character of thisproperty therefore having a positive effect on the local areaThe development would enhance the site whilst being sympathetic to the areaAny improvements made to this property must be considered to be beneficial, and will not justimprove the quality of life of those living there but will also add to the general ambience ofFarley HeathThe proposal represents an opportunity to enhance the existing housing stock in the areaThe property would retain the feel of a cottageLocal community support for the schemeBetter quality housing in support of general policy requirements

Planning policies.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):Core planning principles

Chapter 7. Requiring good designChapter 9. Protecting Green Belt landChapter 11. 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.Vehicle Parking Standards, 2006.

Planning considerations.

The main planning considerations in this case are:

the principle of development and impact on the Green Beltthe loss of a small dwellingthe impact on the AONB and AGLVthe impact on scale and characterthe impact on neighbouring amenitythe impact on parking

The principle of development and the impact on the Green Belt

The National Planning Policy Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition,harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.Furthermore, when considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensurethat substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances' willnot exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and anyother harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

In this case the floor area figures are as follows :

Original dwelling: 89.34 square metres (excluding original outbuilding)Existing dwelling: 114.2 square metres (excluding original and non-original outbuildings)Proposed extensions: 37.2 square metres Proposed dwelling: 151.4 square metres

The existing property has previously been extended at both ground and first floor level and assuch the original dwelling has already been increased by 24.9 square metres. The proposalwould result in the addition of a further 37.2 square metres of external floor area, of which 31.2square metres would be at first floor level. The resultant property would have a floor area of151.4 square metres which is a substantial increase when compared to the size of the originalproperty. The site also includes a number of significant outbuildings spread across the site, it isnecessary to take these into account as extensions and alteration to outbuildings are consideredto be extensions to the property. There is only one original outbuilding on site labelled asoutbuilding 1 and this has itself been extended since original. Therefore, if the size of the existingoutbuildings are added to the floor area assessment, the figures are as follows:

Original dwelling: 108.84 square meters (including detached outbuilding)Existing dwelling: 218.6 square metres (including outbuildings and excluding green house)Proposed extensions: 37.2 square metresProposed elements to be demolished: 42.5 square metres (identified as outbuildings 3 and 4 onplans)

The application suggests the demolition of two existing outbuildings, identified on plans asnumbers 3 and 4, and the reduction of a third, outbuilding 1, thereby removing a total floor areaof 42.5 square metres. Whilst the total floor area to be removed exceeds the total proposed by5.28 square metres, the outbuildings are not comparable to the creation of additional brick builtform. The existing outbuildings to be removed are all single storey low-slung wooden structures,which have little permanence, outbuilding 3 appears dilapidated, partially boarded up along oneside, whilst outbuilding 4 is a garden shed featuring a significant amount of glazing. Therefore, ithas been demonstrated that the outbuildings are not comparable to the proposed brick builtextensions and as such should not be given any substantial weight to offset additional built form.

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 theproperty. In this case the increase in bulk and volume would be significant, particularly at the firstfloor level. Whilst there is some merit in the argument that removing the outbuildings would resultin a reduction in the spread of development, containing built form within the existing foot print ofthe dwelling, there would still be a significant non-original outbuilding on the site. The building tobe retained would be the most substantial structure, set over 32 metres from the rear elevationmaintaining a spread of development across the site.

The first floor extension on the existing catslide roof at the road would largely follow the groundfloor footprint, however, there would be an increase in the bulk and mass of the roofscape, whichwould harm the actual and perceived openness of the Green Belt. The proposed side extensionwould be larger than the existing structure that it would replace. Whilst it would be no wider at2.4m, it would be longer and project beyond the rear elevation by 2.3m. The overall height wouldalso increase from 2.5m to 3.45m. This would substantially increase the built footprint, bulk andmass of the building.

The proposed extensions would encroach on the Green Belt, due to their bulk, scale and masson a dwelling that has already been enlarged. It is therefore considered that the proposal wouldresult in a harmful loss of openness to the Green Belt, contrary to policy H9 of the saved LocalPlan as 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 guidance within the NPPF.

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 Direction24 September 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 first floor rear extension and single storey side/rearextension, to provide a garden room, replacing the existing conservatory. The proposal alsoincludes plans to demolish two outbuildings and reduce the size of the outbuilding 1. Thesebuildings are of no architectural merit and as such there is no objection raised to their removal.

The first floor rear extension would build over the existing single storey rear projection, it wouldbe no higher than the ridge of the main house and would have the same roof pitch. The designwould incorporate an area of flat roof, however, given the existing asymmetric roof form, it is notconsidered that this would be harmful to the character of the property. The half dormers would bewell proportioned and align with the doors below.

The proposed garden room would feature a pitched roof but have a transparent nature, due tothe significant amount of glazing to the sides and rear.

The proposed extensions would be constructed in materials to match the existing property,therefore, ensuring a consistency in design. The scale of the extensions would be in keeping withthe scale of the existing property and its associated plot.

Consideration must also be given to the impact of the proposal on the character and appearanceof the surrounding area. There would be no changes to the existing front elevation, the proposedfirst floor extension, by virtue of its location to the rear of the property would not be visible fromthe street scene. Whilst, the single storey side extension would be set back 4.1 metres from thefront building line, owing to its location to the side of the property, it would be visible from thestreet scene. However, due to the appropriate design and the proposed materials, it is notconsidered that the extension would have any harmful impact on the character of the 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 and Highfold.

The Cottage

The immediate adjoining property to the north of the application site.

The proposed first floor extension would be built up to the boundary with this neighbouringproperty, which currently has a first floor rear building line that projects beyond the applicationproperty. The extension would marginally extend beyond the established rear building line of theCottage and as such would not result in an overbearing impact or encroach within 45 degrees ofthe centre of any ground of first floor rear windows. The proposed side extension, whilstextending beyond the rear building line, would be set over 7.6 metres from the boundary and assuch would have no harmful impact. Therefore, the proposal would not result in any unacceptable

impact on neighbouring amenity, in terms of loss of light, loss of privacy or overbearing impact.

Highfold

The immediate neighbouring property to the south of the application site.

The proposed development would be set well away from the boundary with this neighbouringproperty and as a result of the separation distance, there would not be any unacceptable impacton neighbouring amenity, in terms of loss of light, loss of privacy or overbearing impact.

Therefore, the proposal complies with policies H9 and G1(3) of the Guildford Borough Local Plan,2003 (as saved by CLG Direction 24/09/2007).

The impact on parking

The proposal includes plans to improve the existing parking arrangements on the site, theexisting access would be retained with a dedicated parking area and turning space for two carsprovided. The proposed parking spaces would be set further away from the property than theexisting parking. Therefore, the proposal would not result in the loss of parking and would ensureadequate space for the parking of two vehicles as required by the Council's parking standards.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the proposal, by virtue of the additional bulk and volume, particularly at first floorlevel, would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt. This form of development bydefinition is harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and as such justifies refusal of thisapplication. The proposal fails to comply with both national and local policies and, as a whole, isconsidered to be unacceptable.