Successful Appeal Against Elmbridge Borough Council
July
2024
Hersham, Surrey
What is original in the context of the Green Belt?
As every planner, developer, architect or whomever regularly deals with the Green Belt will know, one of the exceptions to the presumption of inappropriate development as set out in the NPPF relates to the extension or alteration of a building so long as it does not amount to disproportionate additions over and above the original building.
But what constitutes the original building in the case where there has been a replacement erected on site? The NPPF clearly defines this within the glossary as that as it existed in 1948 or as originally built thereafter.
Should be simple, right? A replacement building would become the new baseline as it’s as originally built thereafter. Well, that’s where things can get tricky. As highlighted in the courts in the case of Guildford Borough Council the development plan may define original differently.
In the appeal decision from Elmbridge Borough Council, the Council took the definition of original from the case law relating to Policy P2 of the Guildford Plan which gives reference to the replaced home as being the original. The Council therefore refused permission for the extension to the replacement dwelling as it was considered disproportionate to the original and now demolished dwelling.
With assistance from Jack Parker adding additional weight to our own arguments, we were able to successfully demonstrate to the Inspector that the case law was a very Guildford-centric decision and could not be applied to another authority unless said authority had a similar definition to original as that policy. As set out clearly in the appeal decision, Elmbridge had no such policy and therefore the appeal was allowed and planning permission granted.
One would guess the moral of the story is to thoroughly read the local authority's plan before applying a definition of ‘original building’ and if there is no such definition then revert to the NPPF.
One very pleased appellant and a vindication of the arguments put forward in the initial application too.
Planner: Matt Smith
Counsel: Jack Parker, Cornerstone
