Appeal 3359839

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a detached garage and associated landscaping. Alternative proposal to TA/2023/141 and TA/2023/638 at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2024/946, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans, drawings: A-0001, A-0002A, A-0100, A-0101 and A- 0200A.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The Government published a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in December 2024. It does not change the planning policy context in respect of the main issue, and I have determined the appeal accordingly.

Planning permission was granted for the erection of a detached garage with multipurpose family space above. However, the garage and annexe the subject of this appeal, which I saw is currently under construction, would be larger than that previously approved.

I consider the main issue to be the effect of the proposed development on the architectural integrity of the dwelling and thereby the character and appearance of the site and the wider area.

Valelands is a large, detached dwelling located on a sloping site to the north-east of [address].

The area is designated a Wooded Hillside Character Area which locally is characterised by relatively imposing detached dwellings on spacious plots of an eclectic mix of sizes and designs all set in a mature landscape of trees, hedges and shrub planting. Due to the topography of the area houses are positioned at different levels. As identified by the Council there are examples of garages situated in the frontage of properties.

The main house, although on a lower plot than those further to the west is nevertheless, by reason of its design, external materials and detailing an imposing gable roofed property open to limited views from the street.

The proposed garage/annexe would be located in front of the main house and therefore visible from the street. The principal differences between the approved and proposed scheme are the width of the building setting it closer to the site boundary, its depth, ridge height that would be increase, a pair of garage doors in lieu of one and deeper rooflights to the front roof slope.

The roof line of the proposed garage, at about 7.2 metres would, although higher than that approved, still be about 1.0 metre lower than the ridge height of the house. In terms of materials and detailing the proposed garage, while using matching materials, would appear less fussy and therefore in visual terms subservient to the host property.

On balance I do not consider the proposed garage to be disproportionate to the scale, massing or visual appearance of the house, unduly prominent and thereby visually incongruous and detrimental to the character and appearance of the site and wider area. The proposal would therefore accord with the objectives of Policy CP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy (2008), Policy DP7 of the Tandridge District local Plan Part 2: [name] (2024) and the Framework as they relate to the quality of development and the requirement for development to reflect and respect the character, setting and local context.

I have, in the interests of both precision and enforceability, considered the conditions suggested by the Council in light of the advice in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance.

To ensure a high quality development, I shall impose a condition securing matching materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building.

In the interests of certainty, I shall also impose a condition requiring the development to be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans.

For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.