Appeal 6003597

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of a single‐storey detached double garage with ancillary store at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/1057/FFU and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Proposed site plan, drawing no. 2033 03_P 200, Proposed roof plan, drawing no. 2033 03_P201, Proposed floor plans and elevations, drawing no. 2033 03_P 202.

The external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on the planning application form and on the Proposed floor plans and elevations, drawing no. 2033 03_P 202.

Any boundary vegetation shown as retained on Proposed floor plans and elevations, drawing no. 2033 03_P 202, including the laurel hedge along the Park Road frontage, which, within five years of the completion of the development, is removed, dies, or becomes seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the first available planting season with planting of the same species and of a similar size.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in full accordance with the recommendations, working methods and tree protection measures set out in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment and [name] prepared by [name], [name]: 05375R, dated July 2025. In particular, the garage shall be constructed on a ground‐bearing slab with no excavation within the [name] of retained trees, and all tree protection and ground protection measures shall be installed prior to the commencement of any site works and retained for the duration of construction.

The description of development differs between the application form and the decision notice. The application form refers to a “new single storey, garage building”, which does not fully describe the scale or internal arrangement shown on the submitted plans. The decision notice refers to a “single‐storey detached double garage/outbuilding”, which more closely reflects the nature of the proposal but does not clearly distinguish between the garage and the separate store shown on the drawings. Having regard to the submitted plans, which show a single‐storey detached double garage with a separate ancillary store within the same building, the description adopted most accurately and precisely reflects the development proposed.

The Council’s reason for refusal referred to Policy DH1 of the emerging Surrey Heath Local Plan alongside adopted development plan policies. The emerging Local Plan does not form part of the statutory development plan. The only information before me regarding its status is the reference in the Council’s officer report that the emerging Surrey Heath Local Plan has been submitted for examination. No further details have been provided regarding the progress of the examination, the extent of unresolved objections, or the weight to be attributed to individual policies. In these circumstances, I have had regard to Policy DH1 insofar as it is relevant to the appeal proposal, but afford it very limited weight as a material consideration.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed garage and ancillary store on the character and appearance of the area.

The appeal site comprises a large, detached dwelling located along Park Road, set within a generous plot and screened from the public highway by substantial boundary planting. Vehicular access is taken from Park Road through electric gates, leading to a large driveway area to the front of the dwelling. The site lies within the defined settlement area and forms part of the Wooded Hills Character Area as identified in the Western Urban Area Character Supplementary Planning Document.

The proposed development comprises a single‐storey detached garage with ancillary store positioned within the north‐western corner of the site, adjacent to the Park Road frontage. The site benefits from mature landscaping, including a dense laurel hedge along the boundary fronting Park Road, together with mature trees within and adjoining the site. The officer’s report sets out that the laurel hedge is protected by the area Tree Preservation Order. I am therefore satisfied that this hedge would highly likely be retained. This boundary treatment creates a strong sense of enclosure and provides a high level of visual screening from the public highway.

Owing to the existing boundary hedge, views into the site from Park Road are very limited. The proposed garage would largely be concealed behind the hedge, and in many views, it would not be readily noticeable. Whilst there may be occasional views of the eaves of the building from the furthest sections of the footpath, and when moving along the street, these limited glimpses would be read in the context of the substantial boundary treatment and would not result in the garage appearing visually prominent in the street scene.

I observed that Park Road is characterised by large, detached dwellings set within spacious plots, many of which contain detached garages or ancillary outbuildings. Along this part of Park Road there are several examples of garages and other structures positioned forward of, or on plots that lie adjacent to and side on to Park Road, including at Nos. 90, 112 and [address], as well as a metal lean‐to car port at No. 127. I also observed garages on nearby corner plots and adjoining streets such as [address], where buildings directly side on to Park Road and are experienced within the street scene. Whilst the appeal proposal would sit forward of the principal elevation of the host dwelling and therefore beyond the notional building line, this arrangement is not uncharacteristic of development in the area and would not undermine the spatial or visual coherence of the street. In this context, the proposed garage would not appear incongruous or out of keeping with the established character of this part of the area.

The Council has raised no objection to the proposed materials, which would match the brickwork and roof tiles of the host dwelling. I find that this approach would ensure a cohesive appearance and that the garage would be sympathetic to the architectural character of the main building and the surrounding area.

Although the garage would be positioned forward of the principal elevation of the dwelling, it would not be readily perceived within the same visual frame as the host building from Park Road due to the intervening boundary hedge and mature vegetation. In addition, its limited scale would ensure that it remains visually subordinate and would not detract from the spacious, verdant character that defines the Wooded Hills Character Area.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed garage would not harm the character or appearance of the area. The development would therefore accord with Policy DM9 of the [name] and Development Management Policies (2012).

In imposing the conditions, I have had regard to the tests for planning conditions set out in paragraph 57 of the National Planning Policy Framework and the guidance in the Planning Practice Guidance. In this respect, a standard time‐limit condition is necessary to ensure that the development is commenced within an appropriate timescale, and a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is required in the interests of certainty and to define the scope of the permission.

To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development and its integration with the host dwelling and surrounding area, a condition requiring the use of the approved external materials is necessary. In addition, given the importance of the retained boundary vegetation to the screening of the development and to the character and appearance of the area, a condition requiring the retention and replacement of boundary planting has been included.

A condition has been imposed to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved arboricultural report. This is necessary in the interest of promoting a positive effect upon the character and appearance of the area.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to the development plan as a whole and all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.