Appeal 6001085

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed erection of double garage, with associated solar panels at [site address] , [site address] , Bearley, [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01329/FUL, 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 number 4487_001.

The external materials of the double garage hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling.

The Procedural Guide: Planning appeals – England is clear that the appeal process should not be used to evolve a scheme and that it is important that what is considered by the Inspector is essentially the same scheme that was considered by the Council and interested parties at the application stage. Accordingly, in the interests of fairness I have considered this appeal based on the plans before the Council at the time it made its decision, and not the amended plans submitted as part of this appeal.

The main issues are:  whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies, and  the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the host property and the area.

[site address] comprises a large, detached bungalow with rooms in the roof space, which occupiers a spacious plot at the end of a row of four properties located along [address]. The property has a generous amount of space to the site frontage and includes its designated parking area.

The appeal site is located within the Green Belt. The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, with the essential characteristics of the Green Belt being their openness and permanence. The Framework goes on to state that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Paragraph 154 of the Framework sets out that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt, other than in a few exceptions including (c) the extension or alteration of a building provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Policy CS.10 of the [name] 2011 to 2031 (the CS) includes a similar exception and is therefore broadly consistent with the Framework.

Occupying a position forward of the main house, and with a sizeable footprint, the proposed garage would be a noticeable addition. Nevertheless, although it would be sited over five metres from the house, it would be built in a similar position to the existing parking area, and it would have a clear functional relationship with the host property. With a single storey height and an appearance that would reflect the main dwelling, it would be reasonable to treat the proposed garage as a normal domestic adjunct to the appeal property, such that it would amount to an extension to the dwelling.

The proposed double garage would have an ancillary appearance and despite its reasonable size, it would be modest in comparison to the host dwelling. Indeed, the appellant suggests that the volume of the proposal would be no greater than 30% of the original dwelling. As a consequence, the proposed development would not constitute a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building.

Therefore, for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, as it satisfies paragraph 154 c) of the Framework. It would also accord with Policy CS.10 of the CS. Given the proposed development would not be inappropriate development there is no need for me to consider its impact on openness.

Located at the end of the small row of four properties, and occupying a prominent position forward of the front elevation, the proposed garage would be highly visible from [address].

The scale of the proposed garage would have a noticeable visual presence at the end of the road, but its acceptable appearance and form would soften its visual impact. It would be viewed as a detached garage to the host property and with a lower ridge height than the main house, it would not overwhelm the frontage of the site or the appearance of the original dwelling. As such, the main house would still be observed as the most important feature of the site.

Views of the proposal from the wider area would be limited due to the topography of the landscape, its proximity to tall, dense hedgerows and its juxtaposition with the main house. Furthermore, there are other detached garages and domestic outbuildings near to the appeal site. Such buildings are not uncommon or uncharacteristic for residential properties, including those within a rural area such as this.

The host property has an attractive appearance, as do the other houses along the road. In particular, the facing and roofing materials of the properties are suitable for the rural location. A condition to secure matching bricks and roof tiles would further ensure that the proposed garage has a sympathetic appearance within the street scene and the wider Arden Special Landscape Area.

For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the proposal would not unacceptably harm the character and appearance of the host property and the area. As such, it would accord with [name].9 and CS.20 of the CS, which together and amongst other things, seek all forms of development to be of a high-quality design that are sensitive to the existing built form and landscape character and topography of the site and locality.

Although the planning application form suggests that no trees or hedges would need to be removed, the juxtaposition of the proposal near to the boundary of the site would likely lead to the loss of a small section of the adjacent hedgerow and / or trees, as well as disturbance to wildlife. Whilst unfortunate, any harm would be limited, with only a small part of the hedgerow being lost. There is also no substantive evidence that the proposal would increase flood risk. These matters are not in dispute between the main parties and there is no other substantiated evidence before me that leads me to a different view. Given my findings above, I have found no justification to dismiss the appeal.

Land ownership and future maintenance concerns are cited by interested parties but these are a private matter and fall outside the scope of this appeal.

In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have also, in the interests of certainty, attached a condition specifying the approved plans. A condition to secure matching facing and roofing materials is also necessary in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.