Appeal 6004157

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for construction of domestic garage and home office to be used with the main house at [site address] , Whitestone, Exeter [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01134/FUL, 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 nos: A01.01 Location Plan; A01.01 Block Plan; A01.03 [name] and A02.01 [name] and Floor Plan.

The garage and home office hereby permitted shall not be used other than for purposes incidental to the dwelling and equine business known as [site address] .

I have used the description as it appears on the Council’s decision notice. This is because it replicates that used on the planning application form, with the addition of ‘to be used with the main house’. It therefore provides greater clarity over the use of the proposed buildings for reasons which I will come on to.

The main issue is whether the development would be in a suitable location with regards to development plan policy and if conflict would arise, whether material considerations justify a decision otherwise than in accordance with the

The appeal site lies in the open countryside. Policy S22 of the Teignbridge Local Plan 2013-2033 adopted May 2014 (LP), strictly manages development and limits it to specified uses which, insofar as relevant to this appeal, includes alterations and extensions to existing dwellings and buildings for equine use.

The appeal site is located within the confines of [site address] , an equestrian and livery enterprise. There are a number of existing buildings across the site used for equine purposes including stabling and the storage of tack. The existing dwelling is located to the west of the buildings and occupies a relatively constrained position close to the tack room.

The appeal site is located to the south of a large equestrian building. The proposal would include the provision of a home office which would also be used in connection with the equine business operating at this site. In this respect, the proposal would comply with Policy S22 of the LP.

However, the majority of the building would be used for domestic garaging in connection with the main house. The building would be some distance from the house and beyond what could reasonably be described as the curtilage of the dwelling. The proposal would not be an alteration or extension to the dwelling, and this would conflict with Policy S22 of the LP which seeks to strictly manage development in the countryside. The proposal would also conflict with Policy GP3 of the emerging Teignbridge Local Plan 20220-2040 which contains similar provisions.

The proposed building would be single storey with a pitched roof. The simple shape and form of the building would not be at odds with the functional appearance of the buildings on the wider site. I saw that although the site occupies an elevated location with wide ranging views to the north, the appeal site is well screened and the proposal would be small scale. There is no dispute between the main parties that the proposal would not have a harmful impact on the character or appearance of the area and from my site visit, I see no reason to depart from this view.

The appeal site is elevated above and to the north of the large equestrian building. It is roughly triangular in shape and relatively small, enclosed by trees along its northern boundary. For these reasons, I accept that the potential for it to be used in connection with agriculture or equestrian uses would be limited.

I saw that the main house does not currently have a garage and that it has a very limited garden area. I therefore accept the appellant’s stance that there is limited scope to erect domestic garaging close to the dwelling.

The hardstanding area to the front of the dwelling links directly with the hardstanding areas for the equine business. It was clear to me that that the dwelling and equine business are inherently connected.

The appeal site is occupied by a caravan. The appellant’s case is that the site is already in domestic use. However, it is not the role of this appeal to establish the lawful use of the appeal site. This should be done via an application for a Certificate of [name]. This is a neutral factor in my consideration of this appeal.

Locating the appeal building well beyond the recognised curtilage of the dwelling would conflict with adopted and emerging development plan policies which seek to strictly manage development in the countryside.

However, in this instance, the dwelling and equine business are closely related. The proposal would be small scale and, in part, used in connection with the equine business. In addition, the limited scope for alternative uses for the appeal site and the limited opportunity to provide similar facilities within the curtilage of the dwelling are all factors which weigh in favour of the proposal.

As no harm would arise to the character and appearance of the area, the circumstances in this case indicate that the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan.

In addition to the standard time condition, it is necessary to specify the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

Given that the appeal building would be located outside the residential curtilage of the dwelling, a condition controlling its use in accordance with the description of development is necessary. However, a condition to prevent the building being occupied as a dwelling is not necessary as this would be a change of use requiring the grant of planning permission.

The statutory biodiversity gain condition would apply to any planning permission granted for the development. There is no need for me to specify this within the conditions set out at the start of this decision. The biodiversity gain condition is a pre-commencement condition: once planning permission has been granted, a Biodiversity Gain Plan must be submitted and approved by the planning authority before commencement of the development.

A condition requiring full details of the surface water drainage system is not necessary as the planning application form indicates that this would be dealt with by a soakaway and there is no evidence before me that the proposed development would increase the risk of flooding elsewhere.

The proposed development would not adhere to the development plan but material considerations in this particular instance, indicate that the appeal should be determined otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. Accordingly, the appeal should succeed.