Three bay timber frame garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 October 2017 by Grahame Gould BA MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 8th November 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/L3625/D/17/3182712 Puddleduck Barn, Lake Lane, Horley RH6 9LL  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr Howard Michell against the decision of Reigate & Banstead Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/00726/HHOLD, dated 7 April 2017, was refused by notice dated 5 June 2017.  The development proposed is a three bay timber frame garage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a three bay timber frame garage at Puddleduck Barn, Lake Lane, Horley RH6 9LL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 17/00726/HHOLD, dated 7 April 2017, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: unnumbered location plan; unnumbered ‘proposed site plan detailing new timber frame garage’ and ‘proposed elevations detailing new timber frame garage’. 3) Notwithstanding the external finishes specified on the drawing entitled ‘proposed elevations detailing new timber frame garage’ submitted with the application, the external finishing materials and details for the garage hereby permitted shall be as follows: a) All tiles shall be of handmade sandfaced plain clay tiles with Hogsback ridge tiles and bonnet tiles to the hips. b) All weatherboarding shall be dark stained featheredge timber. c) All brickwork shall be handmade sandfaced brick laid in Flemish bond. d) All rainwater goods shall be of cast iron profile in black finished cast metal or plastic. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision APP/L3625/D/17/3182712 2 Reasons 3. The development would involve the construction of a detached, three bay, open fronted, timber framed garage. The garage would be sited around 20 metres to the south/front of Puddleduck Barn, a seventeenth century, grade II listed building that has been converted into a dwelling. 4. Although the garage would be a quite large building I consider its scale would be subservient to Puddleduck Barn. I am also of the opinion that the garage would be of a scale and have an appearance that would be consistent with it being ancillary to Puddleduck Barn’s occupation as a dwelling. While Puddleduck Barn is a dwelling located beyond Horley’s settlement boundary and is therefore in the countryside, this dwelling immediately adjoins a very extensive area of recently constructed housing. Having regard firstly to Puddleduck Barn’s location in a transitional area between the new housing and the open farmland to the north and secondly to the size of the garage, I consider this building would be an acceptable form of built development in this part of the countryside. 5. The garage has been sited, scaled and designed to be respectful of Puddleduck Barn and I therefore consider that this development would preserve the listed building’s setting. 6. I therefore conclude that the development would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. This development would not accord with saved Policy Hr36 of the Reigate and Banstead Borough Local Plan of 2005 (the Borough Plan) because its use would not be associated with agriculture, forestry, outdoor sports or recreation. However, I consider this development would not be harmful to the open character of its rural surroundings and that it would be of an appropriate scale and design for this location. I therefore consider that the conflict with Policy Hr36 of the Borough Plan would not be of such significance as to warrant the withholding of planning permission. I also consider that there would be no conflict with the fifth core planning principle, as stated in paragraph 17 of the National Planning Policy Framework, because the development would not be harmful to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Conditions 7. Apart from the standard time limit condition, I find it necessary that the garage, in terms of siting, scale and general architecture should be built to accord with the submitted plans for certainty. To ensure that the garage would not be harmful to the setting of the listed building, it is necessary that it should be built with external materials that are respectful of that building’s appearance. I have therefore imposed a condition to ensure that, having regard to the condition that has been suggested by the Council. Conclusion 8. For the reasons given above the appeal is allowed and planning is granted for the development. Grahame Gould INSPECTOR