Appeal 3367806

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a proposed detached timber garage at [site address] , Ashford, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, ref PA/2025/0525, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos 25.105.FIRS.01, 25.105.FIRS.04, 25.105.FIRS.05, 25.105.FIRS.06

No development above ground level shall take place until a sample of the roof tile to be used in the construction of the roof of the garage hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved sample.

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises of a detached single storey dwelling situated on a corner plot on the junction with [site address] and [address] (A252). It is located in the North Downs National Landscape. Vehicular and pedestrian access for the appeal dwelling is from [site address] . The site is within a small settlement where housing consists of various styles and sizes, with [site address] consisting of many Appeal Planning Officer APP/E2205/D/25/3367806 landscaped frontages. The appeal site occupies a relatively large plot, with existing planting ensuring that the site makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the site’s verdant setting.

The Ashford Borough Council Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 9 ‘[name] and Outbuildings in Urban and [name] states that generally garages should be located close to the existing dwelling to limit the overall impact of building work within the landscape. It also refers to planted features which can provide protection and screening.

The proposed garage would be visible from [site address] when travelling towards [address] against the backdrop of the main dwelling. At present double timber vehicular gates and a close boarded fence panel are visible in this position. Given the size of the proposed garage and existing established hedgerow along the road boundaries it would not be prominent in the surrounding setting or as an incongruous addition to the site.

It would be situated in close proximity to the main dwelling and would be subservient in terms of size, scale and bulk. The existing plot is of a sufficient size to accommodate the proposed garage without it appearing cramped and contrived within the site.

The retention of the established hedgerow along the boundary with [site address] would be a beneficial aspect of the proposal, providing screening. Whilst the long term maintenance and viability of the hedgerow cannot be guaranteed, its removal without replacement would be unlikely as it would cause a reduction of the garden’s privacy. Although the appellant contends that the hedge is dead, they have also expressed a willingness for it to be replanted. During my site visit, I noted that while a small section of the hedgerow, extending forward of the proposed garage’s front elevation, appeared to be in poor condition, the remainder of the hedge along the majority of the road boundary of [site address] appears to be in good health. The rear and side elevation of the proposed garage facing towards [site address] would therefore be mostly screened by the hedge.

I observed during my site visit that the existing outbuilding/shed within the appeal site and agricultural buildings a short distance along [site address] are timber cladded. There are also wooden gates within the appeal site and a timber fence along the road boundary opposite. Therefore, I’m satisfied that timber cladding would be an appropriate choice of material and would not be an incongruous material within the appeal site or wider rural setting.

For the reasons given above, I find that the appeal scheme would not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Consequently, I find no conflict with Policies S1 and S6 of the Ashford Local Plan (2019) which seeks high quality design.

The appeal site sits opposite ‘[address],’ a [name] listed building, whose significance derives from its architectural and historic interest. Section 66 (1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that the decision maker, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting, has special regard to the Appeal Planning Officer APP/E2205/D/25/3367806 desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses.

In terms of its setting, the listed building is set back from [site address] , which separates the appeal site from ‘[address],’ with close boarded fencing and established vegetation forming the boundaries of the site. Given the separation distance and intervening vegetation, the proposal would not affect the setting of the heritage asset. As such, I find that the proposal would preserve the setting of ‘[address]’, the significance of which would not be harmed.

The Council are satisfied that no material harm would be caused to the National Landscape, given the nature and extent of the development proposed. I find no reason to disagree with this assessment having considered the proposal and visited the site and therefore find that the proposal would conserve the significance of the National Landscape.

I have imposed the standard condition relating to the commencement of development and a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary as this provides clarity.

I have no details of the proposed roof material. In the interests of protecting the character and appearance of the dwelling and the surrounding area, a condition requiring a sample of the roof tile is necessary.

The Council has suggested a condition preventing the use of the building been used or occupied as a separate and independent dwelling. However, I am required to consider the proposal as applied for and there is no proposal for a separate dwelling before me. If the building is not used for ancillary purposes or a material change of use occurred in the future, it is likely that a separate grant of planning permission would be required, and that building would be at risk of enforcement action if such a permission is not granted. Therefore, for these reasons I do not consider the suggested condition to be necessary.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.