Appeal 6004677

The appeal is dismissed.

The submitted plans do not differentiate between existing residential curtilage and the land proposed for change of use to domestic garden. However, I have taken the red line on the submitted plans as the maximum extents of the land to be used for residential purposes, which would be formed in the event of the appeal being allowed.

The main issues are: • whether the proposal represents a disproportionate addition to the host dwelling; and • whether the appeal site is an appropriate location for the proposed development having regard to development plan policies.

The appeal site comprises an area of land accommodating [site address] , a detached dwelling and surrounding grounds. It is located in a small cluster of dwellings and is rural in character. The site is surrounded by [site address] and [address] on two sides, residential properties on the third and agricultural fields on the fourth. A hedge and bricked wall, part of which is retaining, defines the boundary between the site and agricultural fields.

The appeal site is located in the open countryside, as defined by Policy PG6 of the [site address] Local Plan Strategy 2010-2030 (adopted July 2017) (CELPS). Policy RUR11 of the [site address] Local Plan Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (adopted December 2022) (SADPD) provides criteria for development such as this in the open countryside. These include a threshold of above 50% of the original building floorspace, where proposals are usually considered to be disproportionate additions. Matters including height, bulk, form, siting and design are also policy considerations.

The proposal is for a large, detached garage and car port, which features a significant roof structure. The plans show that the garage would have space for two cars in the internal area and a further two cars in the car port. The plans also show an external log store spanning the whole of the rear elevation, which would be covered by the roof structure. It would be sited in an area where there is currently no building.

The appellant contends that the net internal floorspace of the proposed garage is below the threshold of 50% set out in Policy RUR11 of the SADPD. Be that as it may, the car port (enclosed on three sides) and log store (covered by the main roof structure) are not included within this measurement. Irrespective of these measurements, the footprint of the structure as a whole would cover a substantial area.

The proposal also features a prominent roof form, which adds significant height and bulk to the structure. Whilst its height would be lower than the host dwelling, the significant height and mass of the building would form an imposing addition, which would not appear proportionate or subordinate in relation to the host dwelling. As a result, it would have an adverse effect on the rural character of the area.

I acknowledge that the proposed garage would be lower in height than the nearby agricultural barn in the same field. However, this barn has a clear agricultural use and appears as a separate entity to the dwelling due to their separation distance. The appellant contends that the stepped roof form, hipped gables and traditional materials link and blend with the host dwelling. [name] acknowledge that some effort has gone into the design of the structure in order to assimilate with the surrounding area, these matters do not overcome the harm that I have identified above.

To conclude, the proposal would represent a disproportionate addition to the host dwelling. It conflicts with CELPS Policy PG6 and SADPD policies HOU11 and RUR11. Collectively these policies seek to ensure additions to existing dwellings are not disproportionate to the original dwelling and not harm the rural character of the countryside.

The boundary between the immediate grounds of [site address] and the open countryside is defined by a retaining brick wall to the area closest to the dwelling and a brick wall and hedge to the section adjoining the boundary of The Third Barn. An access point to the agricultural field separates these. Part of the proposed extension to the site’s residential curtilage would include land adjoining the retaining wall. A larger section, including where the proposed garage would be sited, adjoins the hedge and brick wall.

Policy RUR12 of the SADPD permits the extension of residential gardens or curtilages where there is no unacceptable harm to amenity, character and appearance of the surrounding area or open countryside. It does not require justification for any extensions.

At the time of my site visit, the area where the proposed garage would be sited was demarcated in part from the remainder of the field by a fence on two sides. It is clear that this has enclosed an area of land which was formerly part of an agricultural field. The domestic paraphernalia present indicated that it was in use as part of the garden for the property. I have no substantive evidence before me to confirm that the use of the land as a garden is lawful. Nevertheless, this domesticated appearance has eroded the distinction between the domestic curtilage and the open agricultural fields beyond.

The walls and hedge, which border the current residential curtilage, provide a clear, visual distinction between the existing domestic uses and open countryside. Whilst the proposed curtilage would be contained to some extent, it would protrude outwards from the established domestic area. It would create an irregular addition, that would not follow any natural boundary or established features. As a result, it would appear as an incongruous addition, that would not relate well to the current clear distinction between residential and open countryside.

Views of this area are largely only obtained from the host dwelling and neighbouring residential properties. The proposed garage would likely be visible above the boundary hedge from [address] and [site address] , due to its large size and height. Despite these relatively limited views, the proposal would nevertheless erode and therefore have a negative impact on the intrinsic quality and countryside character of the area.

The appellant contends that the proposed curtilage extension and garage would be seen within the context of large dwellings. The location of the appeal site does not relate well to these existing buildings or the established curtilages. It better relates to the agricultural field that it is part of. As a result, any change to residential use would represent an encroachment into open countryside.

It is a relatively small site and the appellant contends that it would not result in a larger than usual curtilage for the area. The appellant also contends that it is not suitable for farming. However, the land still forms part of the rural character and its loss to a more domestic use would harmfully alter its rural character and appearance.

It has been put to me that the fence bordering part of the proposal site is permitted development. However, I have no substantive evidence to confirm that this is lawful. Even if it were, the presence of a fence alone does not provide justification for the proposed development.

I accept that there would be limited space for further domestic paraphernalia, as argued by the appellant. However, the domestic use of the garage would be evident and clearly visible. It would be at odds with the open, rural character of the location.

To conclude, the appeal site is not an appropriate location for the proposed development having regard to development plan policies. It conflicts with CELPS Policy PG6 and SADPD Policy RUR12, which seek to prevent unacceptable harm to the open countryside from extensions to residential gardens or curtilages.

The site is near to [name], a grade II listed building, which is now in use as a dwelling. I have a statutory duty, as set out in s66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting. The school dates from 1872 and is a single and two storey building with an octagonal tower. The significance of the listed building derives, in part, from its architectural and historic interests.

The principal elevation faces eastwards, and not towards the appeal site. The building is separated from the appeal site by [address]. The roof and tower are visible from the appeal site above the trees and vegetation that border [address]. There is no evidence before me that the site was functionally or historically linked to the school and so adds little to the significance of the building as detailed above. As a result, the significance of the heritage asset would not be harmed by this proposal. I note that the Council has not raised concerns in this regard either.

The appellant has provided a Certificate of Lawfulness for an alternative garage scheme and suggests that this should be considered a fallback position. I am satisfied that in dismissing this appeal, there is every likelihood that such a fallback would be built.

The appellant has indicated that they would be content for permitted development rights to be removed via a planning condition so that should this appeal be allowed, the fallback scheme could not also be constructed. Such a condition would only take effect once the permission is implemented. No other mechanism is before me to prevent construction of both schemes.

The garage proposed in the fallback scheme would be smaller in height than the appeal proposal. The appellant contends that the net floor area is larger, however, the overall mass would be smaller. Consequently, the fallback garage would appear as ancillary and incidental to the main dwelling.

Moreover, the fallback garage would be located within the established residential curtilage of [site address] and therefore, would not encroach into the open countryside in the same way as an extension of the curtilage would. Whilst it may be in a more prominent location in some respects, it would be seen clearly within and in the context of this existing curtilage. For these reasons, the fallback scheme has only limited weight in the determination of this appeal.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.