Detached garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 January 2018 by Rory MacLeod BA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 09 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/H1515/D/17/3183809 Rose Cottage, Ivy Barn Lane, Mill Green, Ingatestone CM4 0PS  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 A Butler against the decision of Brentwood Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/00840/FUL, dated 31 May 2017, was refused by notice dated 14 July 2017.  The development proposed is a detached garage. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are (a) whether the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt, (b) its effect on the openness of the Green Belt and (c) if it is inappropriate development, whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Reasons 3. Rose Cottage is a detached two storey house on an irregular shaped plot at the junction of Ivy Barn Lane with Ingatestone Road. It adjoins woodland that largely screens views of the site from Ivy Barn Lane. The site and surrounding area are within the Green Belt. 4. The proposal is to erect a detached building in the front garden adjacent to a driveway leading to Ivy Barn Lane. The building would comprise a garage with a covered parking space alongside and an attached log store. It would be finished in black stained weather boards and a plain tile roof to match the materials used on the dwelling. Whether inappropriate development 5. The development plan for the area is the Brentwood Replacement Local Plan (2005) (BRLP). This predates the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework) and some of its policies are inconsistent with the Framework’s provisions. The appellant considers the proposal to be compatible with policy GB7 of the BRLP that favours the provision of a detached garage within a domestic curtilage provided it complies with the Green Belt development Appeal Decision APP/H1515/D/17/3183809 2 criteria set out in policy GB2. However, paragraph 89 of the Framework states that “A local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate in Green Belt”. The proposed garage would be a new building not benefitting from permitted development allowances in respect of its siting forward of the front wall of the dwelling and so would be contrary to this provision. 6. However, paragraph 89 of the Framework lists exceptions to inappropriate development, one of which is “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”. The BRLP does not take account of the exceptions to inappropriate development set out at paragraph 89. The Council has assessed the proposal in respect of this exception having regard to the case of Sevenoaks District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Dawe (1997) in which it was held that the Inspector was entitled to regard the garage as part of the dwelling in the sense that it was a normal domestic adjunct, and so to treat the appeal proposal as an extension to it. There would be a separation distance of about 7m between the proposed garage and Rose Cottage, close enough for consideration of the garage as an extension to the dwelling in relation to this exception to inappropriate development. 7. The Council considers the footprint to the original dwelling to be approximately 110 square metres, a figure not contested by the appellant. The proposed garage would have a footprint of about 35 square metres resulting in an increase in the region of 31%. The Framework refers to the “size” of the original building and so it is appropriate to also consider the mass of the buildings. The parties have not submitted any volume figures, but the garage would be single storey building with a ridge 3.8m high whereas Rose Cottage is a two storey building with significantly greater mass. However, assessment of proportionality against the original building also requires regard to be paid to other extensions to the dwelling and to other outbuildings. The Council’s records indicate that Rose Cottage has been enlarged by previous extensions. At my site visit I noted the presence of several outbuildings close to the dwelling including a substantial building between the northern corner of the site and the dwelling with a greater footprint than shown on the plans. 8. Having regard to all these circumstances, my findings are that the proposed garage in combination with existing extensions and outbuildings would result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. The proposal would thereby amount to inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Paragraph 87 of The Framework affirms that “inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances”. Openness 9. Openness is an essential characteristic of the Green Belt. The proposal would be set back from both road frontages and would be largely screened by vegetation within the site and by woodland adjacent to it. But the proposal would result in built mass wholly additional to that presently on the site. It would reduce the openness of the Green Belt but the harm arising from the loss of openness would be mitigated by the screening vegetation. The development would still conflict with paragraph 79 of The Framework that states that “the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban Appeal Decision APP/H1515/D/17/3183809 3 sprawl by keeping land permanently open”. There would also be conflict with policy GB2 of the BRLP in relation to the openness of the Green Belt. Other Considerations 10. The appellant contends that the option to build a garage in an alternative part of the site without requiring a specific grant of planning permission amounts to a very special circumstance to justify the proposal. A plan has been submitted showing land to the rear and to both sides of Rose Cottage shaded in green to indicate locations where an outbuilding could be erected up to 4m high under permitted development allowances. Reference is also made to an appeal decision in Brentwood1 in which the Inspector concluded that an extension similar to an appeal proposal, and having no materially different effect on the Green Belt, could be built as permitted development, constituting a very special circumstance by which to justify allowing the appeal. 11. In my opinion different circumstances pertain at this site. A garage erected to the eastern side of the house would restrict light and outlook from windows at the side of the house. If erected to the western side of the house, this would involve continuing the driveway across the front of the house and demolition of outbuildings. The rear garden is not especially deep and a garage erected to the rear of the house would affect the outlook from rear windows. There would also be practical difficulties in providing a vehicular access to a garage in the rear garden given the proximity of outbuildings to both sides of Rose Cottage. Notwithstanding these difficulties, an alternative garage erected closer to the dwelling than that proposed in the front garden would result in a more compact development with a lesser impact on the openness of the Green Belt. Having regard to the likelihood of such an alternative garage being erected and the impact arising from such a development, I ascribe only limited weight to the permitted development fall-back position. Conclusion 12. The proposed development would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. In addition, there would be some loss of openness to the Green Belt in relation to the bulk of the development. The Framework establishes that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. 13. On the other hand, I only attach limited weight in favour of the proposal to the potential for permitted development rights to be exercised to construct a garage in an alternative location as this is unlikely to happen. This consideration does not clearly outweigh the substantial harm arising from the proposal on the Green Belt. Consequently, very special circumstances do not exist. There would also be conflict with policies GB1 and GB2 of the BRLP in relation to new development and criteria for development in the Green Belt. 14. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all matters raised, my conclusion is that the appeal should be dismissed. Rory MacLeod INSPECTOR 1 APP/H1515/D/13/2194167