Appeal 6005120

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for proposed change of use of land to extend domestic curtilage for erection of new garage, minor amendment to house design to allow internal garage to change to games room and associated works at [site address] , Road from [name], Swimbridge, Devon [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 80403, subject to the following conditions:

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing nos: 1173 01 [name], 1173 20 [name] & Section, 681 51 [name] Floor Plan; 681 52 [name]; 681 53 [name] and Sections; and, 1173 30 [name] & Elevations as proposed.

The garage hereby approved shall be used as a private garage for the benefit of the occupiers of the adjacent host dwelling at [site address] only and for no separate residential or commercial purposes whatsoever without the formal consent of the Local Planning Authority.

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no development permitted by virtue of [name], B and E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Order shall be undertaken.

An application for costs was made by [name] against the decision of North Devon District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.

The description of development in the banner heading above has been taken from the application form as neither party has provided written confirmation that a revised description has been agreed. I have however removed reference to the previous approval and to the development being retrospective as these are not acts of development.

At the time of my site visit the development had been mostly carried out but the proposed plans show a reduction in the height of the roof of the garage by 0.5m. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on those plans.

The main issues are: • whether the development is in an appropriate location with particular regard to the local policies concerned with development in rural areas; and, • the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the appeal site is located in the Countryside beyond identified Local Centres, Villages and [name] as defined under Policy ST07 of the [name] and Torridge Local Plan 2011-2031 October 2018 (LP). I have no reason to disagree.

As well as stating that development in the Countryside will be limited to that which meets a local economic and social need, LP Policy ST07 also supports development in the Countryside which is necessarily restricted to a Countryside location.

By reason of the location of the consented appeal dwelling within the Countryside, any extension to it, any enlarged garden and detached garage associated with the dwelling would also by necessity be required to be located within the Countryside. In light of this and given that a dwelling has already been granted on the site, I find that the development is necessarily restricted to a Countryside location and that a local need for the development does not need to be justified.

It follows from the above that the development is in an appropriate location with particular regard to the local policies concerned with development in rural areas. As such, it complies with LP Policy ST07, the aims of which I have outlined above.

The development follows the grant of prior approval1 for the change of use of an agricultural building to a dwellinghouse in 2019 and a subsequent application2 approved in 2022 (the 2022 consent) for the demolition of the barn and erection of a new dwelling and associated works. A subsequent application3 for the erection of a garage and home office was refused in 2023. 1 66056 2 74373 3 77036

The 2022 consent was partly approved on the basis of the prior approval consent comprising a fall-back position. The building granted in 2022 comprised an integral garage with an area of landscaping where the detached garage the subject of the current appeal has been constructed.

In light of the above, the Council raise concerns regarding the size, scale, height and design of the development, particularly with regard to the garage building, and state that the development results in the design of the dwelling being diminished contrary to paragraph 140 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). This is by virtue of the changes to the dwelling resulting in a large outbuilding of a significant and dominating scale.

The appeal site sits back from the road and is largely screened on approach by hedging to the road. While the dwelling and garage are visible through the access, in these views, they are set back from the road and viewed in association with another dwelling that shares the same access. This other dwelling appears visually larger to the appeal dwelling due to the inclusion of a full two-storey element and large elongated footprint. Furthermore, due to the position of the garage forming part of this appeal immediately in front of the host dwelling, it is viewed against and in close association with the host dwelling.

[name] acknowledge that the Council state that it would not have permitted the development if it had originally comprised part of the application in 2022, I am required to consider the development on its merits.

In this regard, the works to the dwellinghouse to replace the integral garage use matching materials and are visually sympathetic to the dwelling and wider area given the resulting symmetry to the building and similar design to the other dwelling off the shared access. While the works to the dwelling provide pressure for the new detached garage, it is not uncommon for dwellings in rural areas to benefit from detached garages. Furthermore, the garage sits at 90 degrees to the dwelling, would be reduced in height by 0.5m and is set into the ground with its ridge height below that of the host dwelling. As a result, and particularly from the road, the garage would appear subservient in scale, and be viewed in close association with, the dwelling.

The enlargement of the curtilage to provide the garage is minimal in size and does not comprise valuable agricultural land. Moreover, the excavation of the site to set the garage level down is not highly visible from the road with replacement planting proposed to mitigate any losses, even acknowledging that the photomontage is indicative only. In light of this, and given that the design of the garage with regard to the proposed materials are sympathetic to the dwelling and given that it would be reduced in height by a further 0.5m, I do not find that the scale and mass of the garage visually dominates the dwelling or causes harm to the character and appearance of the area. This is particularly the case given that the development is viewed in association with the nearby dwelling of comparable scale.

As a result, I do not find that the development undermines or diminishes the enhancements or betterment to the site under the 2022 consent, or that the development detracts from the character and appearance of the immediate area.

[name] have had regard to the 2022 consent removing permitted development rights, this simply requires that permission is applied for and does not in itself prevent appropriate further development from taking place.

I therefore conclude that the development will not harm the character and appearance of the area. As such, it complies with [name] ST04, DM04 and DM25. Amongst other things, these seek to ensure that development responds to the characteristics of the site, its wider context and the surrounding area, be appropriate in scale, massing, layout and relationship to surroundings, and be of a form, scale, setting and design that respects existing development, its context, setting and surroundings. For the same reasons, the development will not be contrary to the provisions of the Framework that seek to achieve well-designed places and ensure that the quality of approved development is not materially diminished between permission and completion.

I have had regard to the recent refusal of outbuildings in rural locations put forward by the Council4. However, I have not been provided with full details of these proposals, note the differences put forward by the appellant to the current development, and note that those sites are located a considerable distance from the appeal site. As such, I cannot be sure that they are directly comparable. Furthermore, I am required to consider the appeal on its merits. As such, I give these decisions very limited weight.

I have had regard to the tests in the Framework in relation to conditions, and the planning conditions suggested by the Council. As the development has already commenced, there is no need for the standard time condition. It is however necessary for a condition to confirm the approved plans in the interests of certainty.

A condition is also necessary to ensure that the garage is only used as a garage for the benefit of the occupiers of the associated dwelling. This is in the interests of protecting the living conditions of occupiers of the host dwelling at [site address] and in order to ensure no harm to the wider area from increased noise and activity. I have amended the wording slightly in the interests of clarity and enforceability.

A condition is necessary to removed permitted development rights for extensions and alterations to the building and for outbuildings in order to protect the character and appearance of the host dwelling and wider area.

I have had regard to the condition related to finding contamination during construction suggested by Environmental Health but given that the development is mostly complete, such a condition would not be reasonable or necessary.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.