"Policy 3D.9 Metropolitan Open Land The Mayor will and boroughs should maintain the protection of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) from inappropriate development. Any alterations to the boundary of MOL should be undertaken by boroughs through the UDP process, in consultation with the Mayor and adjoining authorities. Land designated as MOL should satisfy one or more of the following criteria: • land that contributes to the physical structure of London being clearly distinguishable from the built-up area • land that includes open air facilities, especially for leisure, recreation, sport, arts and cultural activities and tourism which serve the whole or significant parts of London • land that contains features or landscapes of historic, recreational, nature conservation or habitat interest of value at metropolitan or national level • land that forms part of a Green Chain and meets one of the above criteria. Policies should include a presumption against inappropriate development of MOL and give the same level of protection as the Green Belt. Essential facilities for appropriate uses will only be acceptable where they do not have an adverse impact on the openness of MOL. 3.248 The Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) designation is unique to London and protects strategically important open spaces within the built environment. Although MOL may vary in size and primary function in different parts of London, it should be of strategic significance, for example by serving a wide catchment area or drawing visitors from several boroughs. MOL is the same as the Green Belt in terms of protection from development and serves a similar purpose. It performs three valuable functions: • protecting open space to provide a clear break in the urban fabric and contributing to the greener character of London • protecting open space to serve the needs of Londoners outside their local area • protecting open space that contains a feature of the landscape of national or regional significance. 3.249 MOL will be protected as a permanent feature, and afforded the same level of protection as the Green Belt. Appropriate development should minimise any adverse impact on the open character of MOL through sensistive design and siting and be limited to small scale structures to support outdoor open space uses. The boundary of MOL should only be altered in exceptional circumstances and should be undertaken through the UDP process in consultation with the Mayor. Development that involves the loss of MOL in return for the creation of new open space elsewhere will not be considered appropriate."
"N1 - Metropolitan Open Land The council will only grant planning permission for appropriate development on Metropolitan Open Land. Appropriate development is considered to be: a) cemeteries; b) open air sport and recreational facilities; c) open air leisure, arts and cultural facilities; d) open air tourist facilities; e) allotments; f) the construction of new buildings for essential facilities associated with criteria a), b); and g) the limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings."
"4.8 Metropolitan Open Land, as shown on the Proposals Map, is open space that is clearly distinguishable from the built-up area and is significant beyond the Borough and therefore receives the same presumption against development as green belt land. Metropolitan Open Land brings benefits to the whole of London by providing useful and attractive breaks in the built-up area and by retaining a variety of high quality open spaces, landscapes and areas important for their recreational, amenity, bio-diversity, structural, educational, social and cultural roles. 4.9 There are four main areas of Metropolitan Open Land in Camden: > Hampstead Heath and 14 adjoining areas; > Regents Park; > Primrose Hill and the adjoining Barrow Hill Reservoir and the area made up of Highgate Cemetery (East and West); and > Waterlow Park and Fairseat. 4.10 There is a long-term commitment by local and central government to maintain and enhance Metropolitan Open Land by keeping it free from inappropriate development and their uses. As set out in policy N2A, only development ancillary to a use taking place on Metropolitan Open Land, for which there is a demonstrable need that cannot reasonably be satisfied elsewhere, is appropriate. Appropriate uses on Metropolitan Open Land, which recognise the landscape and nature conservation value of the land and its importance as a place of informal recreation, are set out in policy N1. For the purpose of N1, new buildings for essential facilities should be genuinely required for uses of land that preserve the openness of Metropolitan Open Land. Examples of these are outlined in Planning Policy Guidance 2: Green Belts. The Council will also welcome the removal of existing non-appropriate buildings."
"1.4 The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open; the most important attribute of Green Belts is their openness."
"3.1 The general policies controlling development in the countryside apply with equal force in the Green Belts but there is, in addition, a general presumption against inappropriate development within them. Such development should not be approved, except in very special circumstances. See paragraphs 3.4, 3.8, 3.11 and 3.12 below as to development which is inappropriate. 3.2 Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. It is for the applicant to show why permission should be granted. Very special circumstances to justify inappropriate development will not exist unless harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. In view of the presumption against inappropriate development, the Secretary of State will attach substantial weight to the harm to the Green Belt when considering any planning application or appeal concerning such development."
"3.4 The construction of new buildings inside a Green Belt is inappropriate unless i is for the following purposes: - agriculture and forestry .....; - essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, for cemeteries, and for other uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and which do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it .....; - limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings (subject to paragraph 3.6 below); - limited infilling in existing villages ..... and limited affordable housing for local community needs under development plan policies according to PPG 3 ..... ; or - limited in filling or redevelopment of major existing developed sites identified in adopted local plans, which meets the criteria in paragraph C3 or C4 of Annex C1. ..... 3.6 Provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building, the extension or alteration of dwellings is not inappropriate in Green Belts. The replacement of existing dwellings need not be inappropriate, providing the new dwelling is not materially larger than the dwelling it replaces. Development plans should make clear the approach local planning authorities will take, including the circumstances (if any) under which replacement dwellings are acceptable."
"22 The second, and potentially more important submission, is that both in PPG 2, and perhaps more particularly in Policy RUD 7, the term 'materially larger' is to be judged exclusively by reference to floor space. It was submitted that if a house is not materially larger in floor space terms than the one it is to replace, it cannot appear larger and, in particular, cannot be 'materially larger' for the purposes of the relevant policies. 23 I do not accept this submission. In most cases floor space will undoubtedly be the starting point, if indeed it is not the most important criterion. But I entertain no doubt that the concept of whether the dwelling is 'materially larger' cannot be assessed by reference to matters such as bulk, height, mass and prominence. These are all matters going to the openness of the Green Belt. They are plainly all material considerations relevant to deciding on the meaning of the term in the context in which it arise, namely Green Belt policy. 24 Indeed, were it otherwise, absurd results could arise. One could have equivalent or possibly even reduced floor space, but disposed within a tower-like structure, having far more impact on the Green Belt. It would give a strange result, in my judgment, if an inspector were debarred from concluding that the proposed structure harmed oppenness and was inappropriate development."
"The total size of the dwelling as extended will not normally exceed the original habitable floor space by more than 37 sq metres."
"I turn to deal with the fourth ground of challenge which Mr Ground was uncertain whether to press home. It is accepted on behalf of the Secretary of State that the 'original' building, for the purposes of paragraph 3.6 of PPG 2, denotes for the purposes of the present case, the original dwelling of 1948 comprising 45 sq metres. The proposals, therefore, in the terms of paragraph 3.6 involved an addition resulting in 123 sq metres in comparison to the original floor space of 45 sq metres. Paragraph 3.6 does not incorporate any term of flexibility, such as 'normally'. Further, there are no considerations expressly imported into paragraph 3.6 relating to openness or activity. As I understand it, paragraph 3.6 is intended to be an objective criterion by reference to size, needing other factors which might be capable of being introduced in the context of whether very special circumstances exist such as to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt. In relation to this critical part of national policy the Inspector finds that the proposal would 'not conflict' with it. No reason is given by him relating to the essential criterion of proportionate size. Where one is dealing with a proposal involving approximately a threefold increase in size, it was, in my judgment, incumbent upon this Inspector to give reasons for what otherwise would be a most startling conclusion. No such reasons relevant to the specific criterion in question were given. On this further ground, I would quash this decision letter."
" ..... In most cases floor space will undoubtedly be the starting point, if indeed it is not the most important criterion."
"providing the new dwelling is not materially larger than the dwelling it replaces."
"The visual amenities of the Green Belt should not be injured by proposals for development within or conspicuous from the Green Belt which, although they would not prejudice the purposes of including land in Green Belts, might be visually detrimental by reason of their siting, materials or design."
"The replacement single-family dwellinghouse raises no land use policy issues. Where existing dwellings do occur in MOL, it seems right to acknowledge that extensions etc, may be appropriate, and this is specifically referred to in PPG 2 on Green Belts. This guidance in paragraph 3.6 specifically states [the guidance is then set out]. The proposed residential use and its limited extension in size are therefore considered to be appropriate. This is further discussed in paragraph 6.8 below ..... "
"6.5.1 ..... The height of the new flat roof, which would be covered in sedum, would be 1.5 metres lower than the existing pitch roof ridge, although the new roof would be equally higher than the existing roof eaves here. The house as viewed from the front (pond) side will also be wider than the existing one by a total of 3.5 metres. Thus, it is accepted that the overall size and bulk of the front elevation visible from the pond will be greater than the existing front elevation of the house. The proposed grassy 'bund' to the east (pond) side would be some 0.8 metres above the existing ground level, and this raised embankment would result in the whole of the basement storey and the bottom part of the northern ground floor being obscured from views, especially from across the pond, so that the building would appear as a 2-storey structure with sloping lawn in front. 6.5.2 Most of the increased footprint would be towards the rear of the site, filling in the space between the rear elevation of the existing building and the rear garden wall. Thus, most of the increased bulk is directed towards the rear of the site, which is not visible from the public realm. This increase in bulk would therefore not be noticeable from the views across the pond and is therefore not considered to be visually intrusive. The increased footprint towards the pond (east) would cover part of the existing hard surface concrete slabs and raised terracing to front of the existing house. It is not considered to result in a material loss of front garden space ..... it is considered that the new building would appear from the pond as an essential 2-storey flat roofed building, located to the rear of the site and partially screened by greenery. 6.5.3 It is thus considered that, in this context, the combined effect of height, footprint and form would result in an envelope that would be compatible with the surrounding environment. The staggered layout, the green flat roof, the terraces and planting boxes, and large glazed areas to the front would also assist in reducing the perceived bulk of the building. The overall form and layout of the building would thus respect the varied townscape character of this area, as identified in paragraph 6.5 above. ..... 6.5.6 On balance, it is considered that, in the light of the existing part 1, part 2-storey pitched roof building, the proposed massing and bulk of the new building together with its form and design in the sensitive location, would not cause demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of this part of Hampstead Conservation Area."
"6.7.2 As stated before, the proposed scheme would involve an increase in footprint that will be contained mostly within the rear of the site, and as such would not be widely visible from the public realm. Furthermore, the new building would be lower and it would similarly located to the rear of the site than the existing pitched roof building. It is considered that this visible increase in bulk at the front would not cause unreasonable loss of views of the Heath or the pond from properties along the Vale of Health and the perception of a greater mass of building bulk in respect of the front elevation would not seriously harm views from the fringes of the Heath or its setting. In addition, the green roof would assist in assimilating the new building into the natural setting in this view."
"6.8 MOL brings benefits to the whole of London and within the local urban area by providing useful and attractive breaks in the built up area and by retaining a variety of high quality open spaces, landscapes and areas important for recreation, nature conservation, cultural and historic values. There is a strong need to protect existing open land and a need to consider the nature and form of development and land uses in the vicinity of the MOL especially to protect its setting. 6.8.1 The general approach to MOL is to protect openness and allow only appropriate ancillary development. As discussed in paragraph 6.4 above, residential extensions/alterations may be considered appropriate development within MOL on the basis that they would not result in a significant increase in size of the original dwelling (emphasis added). 6.8.2 [Deals with certain other examples where applications/appeals had been allowed/dismissed on other sites within MOL.] 6.8.3 MOL which is defined as 'Open Land within the built-up area which has a wider than Borough significance and which receives the same presumption against development as green belt' is protected by both policies EN46 and N1 (revised draft UDP) against inappropriate development in the context of protection of open land. Policy N1 specifically refers to limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings to be appropriate development on MOL. 6.8.4 The MOL in question is the private garden of the existing residential property, which is not available to the public for general enjoyment and recreation. The contribution that this private garden makes to the MOL as a whole is not considered to change as a result of the proposed replacement scheme, although the footprint of the new building will result in a minor decrease in the area designated MOL (ie the existing building occupies less MOL). However, it is considered that the enlarged footprint of the proposed dwelling is largely achieved towards the rear of the site and, as this will not be visible from the ponds, it is considered that this will only have a minimal impact on the character and setting of the MOL and the Heath. The replacement house is not considered to cause demonstrable harm to the existing openness or setting of the site and the surrounding land, or to the nature and form of development and land uses in the vicinity of the MOL. The proposed house is not considered to alter the balance between built and open space and, on balance, the proposed replacement house on MOL & POS is therefore considered acceptable (emphasis added). 6.8.5 On balance, it is considered that the extent of the 'loss' of MOL is not significant and it will not harm the integrity of the MOL nor result in demonstrable harm to the character and appearance of the Heath at Hampstead Conservation Area."
"However, it is considered that the enlarged footprint of the proposed dwelling is largely achieved towards the rear of the site and, as this will not be visible from the ponds, it is considered that this will only have a minimal impact on the character and setting of the MOL ..... "
"The footprint of the replacement dwelling will be twice as large as that of the existing dwelling, but the public will not be able to see very much of the increase."
" ..... and so what we're looking at is whether any increase in the size of either the building in bulk and mass in terms of its footprint in erodes that openness and detracts from the metropolitan land as a whole or the setting of the Heath. Although as I pointed out at the beginning, the building will be wider, the great majority of the additional bulk that's created and the footprint in terms of how it's enlarged is done in way which won't be visible from the majority of public views. It's tucked away at the back and the side between the existing building and retaining wall at basement level and because of that, the perception of the building, although it will be wider, won't be very different in terms of the enjoyment that people have of that metropolitan open land particularly when viewed from across the ponds and as such it will have a fairly minimal effect on the character of it such that we don't think it's in conflict with the policy and the guidance as to how that policy should be interpreted."
" ..... EN 46 [that] refers to the replacement of existing dwellings need not be inappropriate on an MOL providing the dwelling is not materially larger than the one that it replaces. Given that in footprint terms we're talking double, in volume terms we're talking quadruple, could you answer what you would consider to be materially larger if that isn't materially larger?"
"I think the two things I would refer you back to really is that what we are looking at is appropriate development and whether this development is appropriate and the guidance in terms of the measure of that is whether it's materially larger and I think what I've tried to stress in the presentation in dealing with the questions is because of the particular context of this development, that the way it sits on its side, the way it relates to the back floor, the fact that the ..... overriding perception that you have of the way it relates to the character and appearance of that part of the metropolitan open land is a visual one. It's not a measure of footprint and it's not necessarily even a measure of massing and bulk. What it's looking at is whether visually you will see a different and an adverse effect on all of those things and although yes the building is significantly bigger, the footrpint's bigger, that the volume is bigger, the floor space is bigger. All of that is disposed on the site in such a way that visually although you will see a building that's about 3.5 metres wider, it will be less high, it will related in a very similar way to the open backdrop and at the levels of the site that the setting and I think it's in that context that we're saying it won't be materially bigger because you will see very little of all of that addition."
" ..... I think now PPG 2 was being done to death and it really does seem to show that when a building is so much bigger than that which it replaces it is not appropriate to build on the MOL even if it's at the back of the building and the fact that the design of the building fits neatly into the space and it doesn't look very big really doesn't seem to be a justification for covering this quite large area of designated metropolitan and open land with building, with concrete. The reason why this particular section was metropolitan open land is that it's a buffer between the houses in the vale and the pond. It wasn't anything to do with being part of the Heath as it were, it didn't have to run over it, it didn't matter whether it was a private garden, it didn't matter that the public weren't admitted to it, that isn't really part of the definition of metropolitan open land ..... I cannot see why because the building on this particular house is at the back that it makes it all right. I mean it's a bit like Peepo if you can't see it it doesn't really matter - the eye of the beholder - and this seems to me to be a wrong way to be looking at it. The precedent could be extremely worrying here ..... there will certainly be applications elsewhere. Finally I think I mean, why special circumstances, I can't see why it's special, it's special because it isn't seen. It doesn't make sense."
"Well I think special circumstances is not really the thing we should be hung on. It's whether it complies with the policies that we have in our unitary development plan, significantly whether it complies with the policies in the revised deposit draft which the executive approved on the 11 of January and most importantly whether any harm will be caused and what you always have to look at is, you know, I say almost every time I present an application to you is what harm can you identify from the development and I can only reiterate what I've said previously which is that the importance of the metropolitan open land in this context is the openness, it's fundamentally what sits in front of the building in the way that that provides a context of the building and, you know, when we talk about concreting over metropolitan open land, virtually everything that is proposed to build over is already a hard surface and what we are saying is that the areas in which the building is proposed to be extended will have a minimal visual impact on the metropolitan open land in the way in which this building sits on its site and relates to its immediate context both in front and behind and finally I mean, I really don't think there's any danger of a precedent being created. I mean this is a unique set of circumstances. When you are looking ..... at the impact which the general form has whether it's an extension to an existing building, new house, a replacement to an existing house, you're looking at the particular impact which that building has and I think if the committee approved this development, it certainly wouldn't open the floodgates for all of the land you see around about it to be developed over. We would be able to look at each one in terms of whether it complied with the policies and whether any harm flowed from development and it may not stop people making applications, but it certainly wouldn't mean we have to approve them."