Appeal 6002527

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing garage and erection of detached garage at Ravello, Woldingham, Surrey [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/900, and the plans submitted with it, 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 numbers: Lock and [name] - 25/598-01 Proposed - [name] & Elevations - 25/598-05 Proposed - Site Plan - 25/598-04

No development above ground level shall take place until details of all external facing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

The main issues are: (a) whether the proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies; and (b) the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) stipulates that development in the Green Belt should be regarded as inappropriate unless it accords with one of the exceptions set out in Paragraphs 154 and 155. It states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and that any harm should be given substantial weight. Policy DP10 of the Tandridge Local Plan Part 2: [name] 2014 (TLP) is broadly consistent with the Framework’s objectives of seeking to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

With specific regard to this proposal, Policy DP14 of the TLP is said to be relevant. This policy sets out how proposals for new garages in the Green Belt will be considered, which includes in relation to the size of the host dwelling. The OR does not reference a specific part of Paragraph 154 but concludes that the proposal would be excessive in size having regard to the size of the dwelling. This is consistent with the approach in Policy DP14 and Paragraph 154 (c) of the Framework, which allows for extensions or alterations to existing buildings.

Whilst an outbuilding can be considered as an extension, the appellant suggests that Paragraphs 154 (g) and (h), as well as Paragraph 155 are also applicable to the scheme.

The site would accord with the Framework’s definition of previously developed land, and the proposal would represent the partial redevelopment of a continuing use and thus meet the first limbs of Paragraph 154 (g).

The garage would be larger than the one it would replace. It would extend closer to the dwelling and extend to the rear. It would though remain a flat roof structure, some of which would be set below ground level. As part of the proposal, areas of patio and walling, which are existing built structures in the Green Belt, would need to be removed.

Taking the above as a whole, the development would result in some uplift in the spatial as well as visual presence of the new garage. Collectively these could result in some limited harm to the openness of this part of the Green Belt. However, given the amount and type of development proposed as well as where it would be positioned, when this is assessed against the existing situation, I do not find that such a development would result in substantial harm to openness. Consequently, the proposal would accord with the final limb of Paragraph 154 (g).

Therefore, the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. As such, it would accord with the approach to development in the Green Belt as set out in the Framework and Policy DP10 of the TLP which, amongst other things seeks to safeguard the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

[name] have found that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt by virtue of paragraph 154 (g) of the Framework, it is not necessary for me to consider whether it would accord with Paragraphs 154 (c), (h) or 155 as this would not alter my findings in relation to paragraph 154 (g). As a further consequence, I also do not need to consider whether there are other considerations and whether they amount to very special circumstances to justify the development.

Whilst policy DP14 is relevant to the proposal as a garage in the Green Belt, its criteria do not directly accord with the Framework. I am also mindful that the supporting text indicates that the policy is intended to help offer very special circumstances to those schemes which might otherwise not be permitted. In the circumstances of this case, I therefore favour the Framework, which is a more up-to-date document and so Policy DP14 is not determinative in this instance as to whether the proposal is inappropriate development.

The site is said to be within the ‘Special Residential Character Area G: [name], which forms a transition between Woldingham village and the open countryside beyond. Houses in the vicinity are generally large and detached, with some having separate garages/outbuildings. They are set well back from the road and within their own sizeable plots. This all contributes to a semi-rural character in which the verdant landscape remains the dominant feature. The appeal site positively contributes to this context.

The existing garage is a single storey, flat roof structure. It is set well back into the plot and positioned between the dwelling and existing boundary hedging. Despite it sitting above the level of [site address] , it is not particularly prominent within the site itself or the wider landscape.

The replacement garage would have a greater footprint and more of the structure would protrude above ground level. This new garage would though be sited in a similar position to the existing one such that any additional built form would, in the main, only be noticeable from within the site.

Despite its size, the replacement garage would be single storey and not appear overly dominant or large in relation to the existing dwelling, when viewed from within or outside of the site. I am therefore satisfied that the garage would not appear unduly obtrusive or undermine the surrounding landscape as the dominant feature.

Overall, the proposal would not be unduly harmful to the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it would accord with Policies CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008, Policy DP7 of the TLP and Policies L1 and L3 of the Woldingham Neighbourhood Plan (2016) which amongst other things, seek to ensure that development respects and reflects the local character, integrates well with the surrounding local area, including with the landscape.

In addition to the standard time limit, a condition specifying the approved plans is required in the interests of certainty. The garage is to be finished in render and brickwork, but precise details are not provided. To ensure the materials are appropriate, details will need to be provided for the Council’s approval.

The proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Furthermore, the proposal would not cause harm to the character and appearance of the area. Therefore, having considered the development plan as a whole, along with all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions.