House extensions at Ruskin, East Horsley, Leatherhead

What was proposed

The application proposed a porch, two-storey side and rear extensions, a first-floor extension, changed windows and demolition of the existing garage.

“The application proposes the erection of a front porch, two storey side extension, first floor extension and changes to the fenestration, following demolition of existing garage (as amended by plans received on 02/06/2025 and 14/08/2025).”

“More specifically, the application proposes the erection of a part single, part two storey rear extension that would extend the full width of the two-storey section of the existing building, at full height, and would project out to be in line with the outer-most rear elevation of the building (existing single storey rear elevation). The extensions would incorporate a wholesale roof replacement and…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a detached two-storey house in a generous screened plot within the Green Belt and East Horsley settlement boundary.

“Ruskin' is a two-storey detached house located on the western side of Green Dene within a generous plot. It is set back from the road with good screening along the site frontage in the form of hedging/trees. There are two single garages attached to the northern side of the building.”

“The site is located in the Green Belt and within the identified settlement boundary of East Horsley.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the resulting building would be a disproportionate Green Belt addition and no very special circumstances outweighed the harm.

“Overall, taking into account all the relevant factors, the proposed development would result in a disproportionate addition to the original building and thus would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, contrary to paragraph 154 of the NPPF, Policy P2 of the LPSS and the Green Belt SPD.”

“In such circumstances, it is necessary to consider whether there are any very special circumstances which would clearly outweigh the harm that is caused by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm. This report therefore goes on to consider whether any other harm is caused by the proposed development before making an assessment of whether there are any very special circumstances.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two supporters addressed the committee, followed by a local ward councillor who spoke against the application.

The committee debate

Members debated the former 40% approach, the building’s footprint, design, sustainability, plot size, Green Belt policy and very special circumstances.

“The Committee discussed the application, reflecting on the long-standing “40% rule” previously applied to extensions in the Green Belt. Some members felt the proposal was not disproportionate or harmful, noting that the footprint of the dwelling would remain unchanged, and the design was sympathetic to its setting. They emphasised that the scheme would RECORDED VOTE LIST”

“Other members raised concerns about Green Belt policy and the need to demonstrate “very special circumstances” where development was considered inappropriate. It was acknowledged that the proposed extension would significantly increase floor space, but several Members considered this acceptable given the size of the plot and the character of the surrounding area.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee approved the application against the officer recommendation, subject to conditions on commencement, plans, materials and landscaping.

“The Chair moved the motion to approve application 25/P/00285, contrary to the officer recommendation, on the grounds that the proposal represented a proportionate addition to the original dwelling and therefore constituted appropriate development in the Green Belt. The motion was seconded by Councillor Hives and was carried unanimously.”

“RESOLVED: That application 25/P/00285 be approved subject to conditions relating to commencement, approved plans, external materials, and landscaping, with approval of final wording of conditions delegated to the Planning Officer.”

Minutes