Appeal 6005507

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of two outbuildings and erection of a single storey garage with subterranean car and plant storage space at [site address] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/2025/02425, subject to the following

I have taken the description of proposed development from the Council’s decision notice as this clearly and succinctly describes the act of development that has been proposed.

The main issue raised by this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area.

The proposal would provide an above ground building with two subterranean levels underneath that would have a larger footprint and volume to that of the above ground structure. The first subterranean level would be visible above ground at the north and south sides as the ground would be dug away to make a vehicular entrance at the south side and a pedestrian entrance via steps at the north side. As part of the development it is proposed to remove the existing garage at the front of the dwelling and stable building at the southern side of the site.

The land is currently laid out as garden with domestic landscaping features. The site, although within the countryside, has a domestic character and appearance with existing ancillary outbuildings, driveways and a pond. There are also residential properties to its north and south. The above ground single storey garage building would be of modest size and would replace two of the existing outbuildings that are of themselves of modest size. The overall extent of above-ground development across the site would be reduced in number and footprint. Much of the structure would be underground thereby reducing the level of built form above ground. As such, this would not spread visible built form across the site.

At ground level the modestly sized garage and its entrances would be visible. The entrances would utilise the site’s existing contours as well as much of the existing driveway access. In limited views from predominantly within the site the entrance to the upper subterranean level would be visible. The scale and/or design of these elements of the proposal would not visually compete with the host dwelling or be of a design that would be disproportionate in relation to the main dwelling. The existing dwelling would remain as the most dominant development within the site.

The proposal is to accommodate the appellant’s private car collection. It is not unreasonable for an occupier to store a vehicle collection at home for reasons of parking convenience and secure storage of vehicles. Much of the proposal would not be perceivable above ground. There is no clear indication that the storing of vehicles or any activity related to the vehicles at the site would involve a level of activity that would be substantially perceivable and/or be an unreasonable domestic activity associated with the host dwelling.

The proposal represents a proportionate form of ancillary development, appropriate to the size and scale of the host dwelling. The localised landscape character along this stretch of [site address] comprises sporadic residential development with additional ancillary buildings to the rear, broken up by large extents of boundary vegetation and trees within the wider landscape. The modest size and scale of the above ground structures would be seen in a similar way. The subterranean element is not visible in the landscape. Thus the proposed development would have little impact on the rural landscape of the wider countryside.

For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the character and appearance of the area As such, the proposed development would comply with Policies EN2 and EN4 of the Mole Valley Local Plan and the Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) ‘[name]. These policies and SPD seek, amongst other matters, development to be of high-quality design and for ancillary buildings within the curtilage of an existing dwelling to be permitted provided they do not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Furthermore, the SPD advocates garages to be set back from the face of the existing house, which would be the case here.

The appeal site boundary is within 1 metre from the wall of a neighbouring property and the drive is within 2 metres. Concern is raised with regard to large construction traffic at the site, noise and vibration, structural integrity of the neighbouring property and disruption to work if broadband cables are cut. In the past disruption has been experienced from other previous planning works at the site. It is also highlighted that the property would be located between two active construction sites. A request for a construction management plan has been put forward and for the appellant to take responsibility for any damage caused by construction activities.

There is no clear indication that signficant noise and/or disturbance would arise during the build period or that broadband connections would be severed and/or the integrity of the neighbouring property would be undermined. It would, therefore, not be appropriate or reasonable to impose a planning condition requiring a construction management plan as there is no clear indication that the appellant would not carry out works in a responsible manner. If any damage results from construction activities this matter should be taken up with the appellant directly.

There is a [name] listed building known as Stylehurst adjacent at the north side of the appeal site. The listed status makes this building of architectural and/or historic value and this attracts special interest for these reasons and gives this property significance.

The planning application was supported by a Heritage Statement. The Heritage Statement concludes that the proposal would preserve the setting of the listed building and not result in material harm to the setting of the listed building. The proposed development would not be experienced in the immediate environs of that building. I concur with these findings, therefore, I do not consider the development would negatively impact upon the significance of this heritage asset.

I have considered the imposition of planning conditions in light of paragraph 56 of the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the standard time limit condition and in the interests of certainty it is appropriate that there is a condition requiring the development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. In the visual interests of the locality a condition requiring the materials of the garage/outbuilding to accord with those materials set out on the planning application form is necessary. The proposal has been put forward on the basis that two existing structures at the site are to be demolished. This forms part of the description of the proposed development. It is, therefore, necessary for a condition to be imposed that would ensure the demolition of those buildings within an appropriate development timeframe.

For the reasons set out above, and subject to the conditions listed, this appeal should be allowed.