Appeal 6003058

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the conversion of existing garage building to two-bedroom detached dwelling at Tanglefields, [site address] , Surrey, [site address] , [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/289, 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 drawings 23/436-01A, 23/436-02A, 23/436-03, 23/436-04A.

The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building.

Prior to first occupation of the dwelling, details of both hard and soft landscape works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall include: earthworks showing proposed finished levels or contours; boundary treatments; vehicle parking layouts; other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; hard surfacing materials; minor artefacts and structures.

All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species.

Prior to first occupation of the dwelling, elevations showing the proposed solar panels have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority, and the approved scheme shall be installed in accordance with the agreed details prior to the first occupation of development hereby permitted and thereafter retained.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations and mitigation measures set out in [name] (PEA), dated July 2025, and retained thereafter.

No development shall start until an arboricultural method statement has been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The statement should include details of all works within the root protection area, or crown spread of any retained tree. The approved measures shall be implemented in full for the duration of the development.

The main issues are: • whether the development is inappropriate, • the effect on the openness of the Green Belt, • whether the development is in a sustainable location, and • whether very special circumstances exist.

The site is located within the Green Belt of [site address] , where the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (NPPF) places great importance on preventing inappropriate development within the Green Belt. The fundamental aim is to safeguard the countryside from encroachment by keeping the land permanently open. Green Belt

The development proposes the conversion of an existing single-storey detached outbuilding into a dwelling within the Green Belt. While this development would reuse an existing building, the change of use from an outbuilding to residential use can affect openness and should therefore be assessed carefully. Any harm to openness would constitute inappropriate development and, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. The inappropriateness of the development will be determined by its effect on the openness of the Green Belt.

While the proposal would result in the formation of a residential curtilage, this would be limited in extent and associated with a single dwelling. Nevertheless, the change of use to residential use can affect the openness, for example the impact of a new access, boundaries, garden paraphernalia and parked cars. In this case the development would utilise the existing access arrangement and thus would not require the formation of a new access that would change existing views from the road. Furthermore, the outbuilding is currently used as a garage with number of cars parked around it, and as this use would cease, this would likely reduce. However, while the development would utilise two existing boundaries, it would introduce a new boundary between the site and the neighbouring garden, therefore subdividing the existing grassed garden area. Despite this, a substantial area of open garden would be retained both within and beyond the site, and the boundary treatment and landscaping could be controlled by conditions.

The development would involve the reuse the existing building, and there would be no extensions or alterations that would increase its footprint, volume, scale or height of the existing building. While the visual effect would be minimal, the intensified residential use would result in some harm to the spatial openness of the Green Belt. However, given the small scale of the development as a modest single family dwelling, this impact would be limited.

When considered together, the development would cause both visual and spatial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Whilst the extent of harm would be limited due to the sheltered location of the site and small scale of the development, it is nevertheless afforded substantial weight in accordance with paragraph 153 of the NPPF.

The appeal site is located on a road with limited traffic, with direct connection to the A33 [address], which provides convenient links to nearby towns and their services and facilities. Everyday services, including a shop, restaurant, nursery, primary school, petrol station and church, are all available within two miles of the site. The nearest bus stop lies within a short walking distance of the site, along a lightly trafficked road with a pleasant street scene characterised by mature trees, and sporadic buildings set in mature gardens. The bus stop provides regular services linking the area with neighbouring settlements and the nearest railway station. While it is acknowledged that services beyond everyday needs require either public transport or the use of a private car, this would not be uncommon in rural areas and is considered acceptable in this context.

The appeal site forms part of an existing residential plot within an area characterised by many other sporadically sited residential properties. In this context, the proposal would not introduce development into an isolated or wholly rural location. The proposal would therefore not result in an isolated form of development, and future occupiers would retain opportunities to access services by means other than the private car. Accordingly, the site is not regarded as an unsustainable location, and any reliance on private car travel carries limited weight in the overall planning balance.

The development would make a modest positive contribution towards maintaining the vitality of the rural community. This benefit is afforded limited positive weight in the overall planning balance.

The Council has confirmed that it is unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites and, as a consequence, paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is engaged. Whilst modest in scale, the proposed development would contribute additional housing in a sustainable location. In light of the housing land supply shortfall, this carries significant positive weight in the overall planning balance.

The proposal involves the conversion of an existing single-storey detached outbuilding into a dwelling, rather than the construction of a new building within the countryside. The re-use of the existing building would not require extensions that would materially alter its footprint, scale or appearance. As a result, the building would retain its existing character within the site and wider setting. This carries significant positive weight in the overall planning balance.

The appellant has submitted a structural report with the appeal, which confirms that the existing outbuilding is capable of conversion with only minor modifications. Furthermore, the proposed conversion would provide acceptable living conditions for future occupiers, including appropriate internal floorspace and private amenity. These factors support the feasibility and deliverability of converting the outbuilding to a dwelling. As the proposal involves the re-use of the existing building without the need for significant alterations, adaptations or reconstruction, it represents a sustainable form of development and would have significant positive weight in the

Taking all matters into account, I conclude that the material considerations identified above weigh in favour of the development and clearly outweigh any harm to the Green Belt. Accordingly, very special circumstances exist. The development would therefore accord with policies DP7, DP10 and DP13 of the Local Plan, Policy CSP18 and CSP21 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy 2008 ([name]). It is also consistent with paragraphs 55, 131, 135 and 154 of the NPPF, insofar as these seek to preserve the openness of the Green Belt, support the appropriate re-use of existing buildings, promote development in sustainable locations, and ensure developments respect and enhance the character, appearance and amenity of the area.

The standard time condition is imposed for the avoidance of doubt. The condition specifying the approved plans is necessary to provide certainty. The condition for the materials is necessary to ensure that the character and appearance of the area is maintained. The condition for elevations showing solar panel arrangement is required to maintain visual amenities of the development, while the condition requiring the installation is necessary to ensure the provision of on-site renewable energy. The condition for landscape works is necessary to maintain and enhance the visual amenities of the development, and effect on openness, and the requirement for arboricultural method statement is necessary to ensure adequate tree protection during construction works.

The condition for cycle facilities is not considered necessary, as the proposal relates to a single detached dwelling where cycle storage needs would differ materially from those of a larger or multi-unit residential development. The condition referring to sections 4.20 and 4.23 of the PEA report is unnecessary, as all required mitigation measures are adequately secured through the general condition relating to ecological matters.

For the reasons given above, having regard to all other matters raised, it is concluded that very special circumstances exist to justify the development, and the other considerations in this case clearly outweigh the harm identified. The proposal therefore accords with the development plan and the material considerations weigh in favour of granting planning permission. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.