Appeal 6005888

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for erection of single storey double garage/store at [site address] , [site address] , Buckinghamshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/25/4778/FA, 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 the approved plans: Location & Block Plan No. B dated 22/07/2024 and Garage and [name] [name] dated 16/10/25.

The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development herby permitted shall match those used in the host dwelling.

The use of the building hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other than for purposes incidental to the residential use of the dwelling known as [site address] .

The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard before deciding the appeal.

I have taken the description of development from the Council’s Decision Notice as this is more concise.

Both parties refer to the recent erection of a close boarded fence and gate along the front boundary of the appeal property. The Council state the fence was erected without planning permission. I also note the Council’s comments that the materials were not approved for the recently completed appeal dwelling. Whilst these points have been noted, they are matters which fall outside of the appeal proposal.

The Council have referred to the neighbouring property adjacent to the proposed garage location as ‘[name] it appears from the plans and my site visit that this property is called ‘[name]. I have therefore referred to it as [name] in this decision.

The main issues in the appeal are: • Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies; • The effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt; • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the local area; • The effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the Chilterns National Landscape (National Landscape); and • The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of ‘[name] with regard to outlook.

The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence, and the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate development, other than for the specific exceptions set out in paragraph 154 of the Framework.

Paragraph 154 c) of the Framework allows for the extension or alteration of a building provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Policies CP8 and DM42 of the Wycombe District Local Plan (August 2019) (the Local Plan) conform to the general thrust of national Green Belt policy, seeking to protect the Green Belt from inappropriate development.

The courts have held that some outbuildings may be considered as extensions on the basis that they are ‘normal domestic adjuncts’, for example, the construction of a garage in close proximity to a dwelling. Given its proximity to the dwelling and that it would provide accommodation that would normally be found within the dwelling itself, I consider this to be the case with the proposed development.

Part 2 of Policy DM43 of the Local Plan provides additional rules regarding residential outbuildings in the Green Belt. It states that outside identified built up villages, any increase in the volume of residential outbuildings will only be considered appropriate when they meet all of the conditions provided. The appeal proposal would meet the height criteria set out in d) and e) of the policy and less than 50% of the curtilage outside of the dwelling would be occupied by outbuildings as set out in c). The appellant has indicated that the volume of the outbuilding would be circa 96 m3 which is below the threshold of 140m3 set out under condition b).

The appeal property was recently constructed and replaced a chalet bungalow on the site. The criteria in part 2 a) of policy DM43 requires that outbuildings do not exceed 25% of the volume of the original dwelling. The definition of original building in the Local Plan is the building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if the first building was constructed later than this, the first building constructed. The Framework states that the original building is as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was built originally. The Framework does not expressly deal with replacement buildings. However, for the purposes of the Framework it would be reasonable to conclude that the ‘original building’ would be the replacement dwelling itself, as originally built. This differs from the Local Plan definition.

I do not have details before me of the dwelling that the appeal dwelling replaced. However, the appellant has provided the volume calculations for the replacement dwelling and the proposal would not exceed 25% of the volume of the current dwelling. The Council do not dispute this.

There is no definition of what disproportionate is within the Framework. However, whilst a fairly sizeable garage/store is proposed, the dimensions and volume of the outbuilding would not be out of keeping with the scale of the dwelling and plot size. Whilst set on higher ground than the dwelling, which I acknowledge is not a typical arrangement, the ridge height of the proposed garage would be below the dwelling ensuring a subordinate relationship in the context of this appeal site.

The proposal is in proportion to the dwelling that currently occupies the appeal site. I therefore do not consider that the proposed garage/store would represent a disproportionate addition. Based on the evidence before me, the proposal is within the requirements set by Local Plan Policy DM43.

For these reasons, I find that the proposal would not comprise inappropriate development within the Green Belt as defined by the Framework and Policy CP8, Policy DM42 and Policy DM43 of the Local Plan. Given this finding, I do not need to consider openness any further.

The Chilterns Buildings Design Guide (2010) ([name]) outlines that garages to the front of houses should be avoided. The Householder Planning and Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (January 2020) (SPD) also outlines that garages should be set behind the front built line of the dwelling they serve to prevent them obscuring the main dwelling and not be obtrusive into the wider street scene. The SPD also states outbuildings should not dominate or detract from the main building, and that it should be subservient to the main building in scale, mass, and bulk.

The appeal property is a detached dwelling. The majority of the properties along [site address] are set back on lower ground in relation to the road, with sloping or tiered front gardens and driveways. Many of the properties along [site address] and [address] have garages or outbuildings to the front of the dwellings. Whilst the Council state the other garages in the locality are smaller in scale than the proposal, I saw on my site visit some examples of garages of a broadly comparable size. Not all the garages present add positively to the appearance of the area, some of the more harmful examples are those built at the same level as [site address] / [address] with no separation distance from the road.

The proposal would be subservient in scale compared to the appeal dwelling. It would be sited in the corner of the driveway, and space would be left open at the front of the property. The garage would be sited on ground below the road level and separated from the road by a small retaining wall which would reduce its prominence in the street scene. Even if the boundary fence were to be removed, planting is in place that would mature and largely obscure the proposed garage from public views. The proposal would therefore not significantly alter the appearance at the front of the dwelling or the general character and appearance of the area where garages in front of dwellings are commonplace.

In terms of the materials, the proposed matching materials would help provide a clear visual link between the proposed garage and the appeal dwelling. Whilst the Council consider the proposed materials would fail to respect the established vernacular of the locality, I saw a lot of variation in materials and design of buildings including more contemporary styles in the area. On this basis, I do not consider the proposed materials would be harmful.

The proposal would generally accord with the advice provided in the SPD, and whilst the location in front of the dwelling would not be supported by the SPD or the [name], I have found no harm to character and appearance would occur. It would therefore accord with Policies CP9, DM35 and DM36 of the Local Plan and the Framework which together seek to ensure development achieves a high quality of design, respects character and appearance and create positive and attractive buildings and spaces. In addition, it would accord with the part of Local Plan Policy DM36 which seeks to ensure that householder development is ancillary in function to the main dwelling.

The statutory purpose of National Landscapes is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area. Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 requires relevant authorities ‘seek to further’ the statutory purposes of [name], including National Landscapes. Similarly, paragraph 189 of the Framework requires great weight be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. Local Plan Policy DM30, has the same aim and seeks to ensure that development within the National Landscape (formerly known as Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) conserves or where possible enhances the natural beauty.

The special qualities of the National Landscape include the steep chalk escarpment with areas of flower-rich downland, broadleaved woodlands (especially beech), commons, tranquil valleys, the network of ancient routes, villages with their brick and flint houses, globally rare chalk streams and a rich historic environment of hillforts and chalk figures.

I have found that the size, positioning and materials proposed for the garage would assimilate well with the appeal dwelling and would be in keeping with the context and character of the area.

There are glimpsed views from [site address] either side of the appeal dwelling of the valley landscape beyond. However, these views should remain largely unaffected by the proposal given its position in front of the dwelling with a gap maintained between the rear of the proposed building and the property boundary.

Consequently, the proposed development would preserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Landscape and accords with Local Plan Policy DM30 and the Framework.

The proposed garage would be located adjacent to an area used for parking and part of the front garden of the neighbouring property ‘[name]. Whilst the proposed garage would be set on higher ground compared to the dwelling at [name] there is sufficient separation distance that it would not feel overbearing. The proposed height of the garage is fairly modest and the existing planting along the shared boundary would largely shield it from view, despite some small gaps in the greenery.

For these reasons, the proposal would not cause material harm to the living conditions of the occupiers of [name], having regard to outlook, and would accord with Local Plan Policy CP9, DM35 and DM36, the Framework and the SPD which seek, amongst other things, to ensure high quality design and avoid harm to neighbouring amenity.

The Council have raised concerns that the design and scale of the garage could mean it could be used as living accommodation and be easily adapted to appear as a small dwelling with parking. The test provided in the SPD for whether outbuildings are ancillary in function or tantamount to a new dwelling is whether there is a level of facilities within that allow for the outbuilding to be self-sufficient, and whether there is a clear link to the main dwelling.

In this case, the appellant has applied for a garage/store building. The evidence shows that the appeal site comprises the whole of [site address] and no new or independent access is proposed. Whilst there would be separation between the proposed garage and the front of the dwelling, the appellant has explained that given the steep topography of the appeal site, locating the proposed garage near the road would aid safe access in bad weather.

The proposed building would not contain any facilities such as a kitchen or bathroom and the design features no windows. The appellant does not claim to be seeking permission for an independent dwelling and furthermore the Council validated the application on this basis, including as a householder planning application. If the building is not used as a garage/store as is proposed, or if there is a material change of use in the future to create a separate dwelling, then a separate grant of planning permission would be required, and the building would be at risk of enforcement action if such permission is not granted.

It is noted that the proposed internal garage measurements fall just short of the [name]. However, the shortfall is minimal and is unlikely to result in any material harm. Driveway parking would still be available at the appeal site.

I have considered the conditions suggested by the Council. Where necessary, and in the interests of clarity and precision, I have slightly altered the conditions to better reflect the advice in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance.

I have imposed the standard conditions relating to the commencement of development and specifying the relevant plans in order to provide certainty. I have included a condition requiring the external materials to match the existing dwelling to protect the character and appearance of the appeal property.

In the interests of the character of the area, to avoid the building forming an independent dwelling, it is also necessary to impose a planning condition requiring that the development is incidental to the main dwelling. I have not included a condition specifying that no windows, doors or openings are provided in the proposed garage as this is not necessary as the plans only show garage doors and no additional doors/windows. The condition requiring the outbuilding to remain incidental to the main dwelling will ensure it is not used as an independent dwelling.

The appeal site is well landscaped, with recent planting on the front boundary and in this case, a condition requiring a scheme of landscaping to be submitted as suggested by the Council is not necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.

For the reasons given above, the proposal would comply with the development plan when taken as a whole and there are no material considerations, including the Framework, that would outweigh this finding. Consequently, I recommend that the appeal should be allowed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is allowed.