Erection of an attached garage/ garden room

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 4 December 2017 by Clive Tokley MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 15 December 2017 Appeal Ref: APP/M3645/D/17/3185422 Green Coppice, West Park Road, Copthorne, West Sussex, RH10 3EX.  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 Dale Hennell against the decision of Tandridge District Council.  The application Ref TA/2017/1203, dated 7 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 15 August 2017.  The development proposed is described as erection of an attached garage/ garden room. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main Issues 2. The main issues are: - a. Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (The Framework). b. The effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt. c. If the proposal is inappropriate development whether there are any other considerations that clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt due to inappropriateness and any other harm and whether very special circumstances exist to justify the granting of permission. Reasons Inappropriate development 3. The Framework indicates that within Green Belts the construction of new buildings is normally inappropriate development; however in Paragraph 89 it identifies a range of developments which may not be inappropriate. These exceptions include specific provisions for the enlargement of a building. 4. Bullet point 3 of Paragraph 89 indicates that 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, may not be inappropriate. “Original” is Appeal Decision APP/M3645/D/17/3185422 2 defined by the Framework as a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after that date, as it was originally built. 5. Tandridge Local Plan Detailed Policies (LP) was adopted in July 2014. The text of Policy DP13: Buildings in the Green Belt is broadly along the lines of Paragraph 89. However taking account of the policy background in Tandridge the term “original”, when related to dwellings, is defined as the dwelling as it existed at 31 December 1968. 6. The officer report indicates that the original 1968 dwelling has been extended by about 220 cubic metres (including an unimplemented extant permission for a porch). The proposal would add a further 143 cubic metres and in total this would amount to an increase of about 74% in volume as compared with the size of the original dwelling. The appellant does not challenge the Council’s conclusion that this increase would be disproportionate. Taking account of the general restraint on development in the Green Belt I have no reason to disagree with the Council’s judgement. 7. On this issue I conclude that the proposal, in combination with previous additions, would be disproportionate to the size of the original dwelling, as defined by the LP and the Framework, and that it would therefore be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Openness 8. Any building above ground would have some effect on openness and that would be the case for the appeal proposal; however I consider that in the light of its scale and location in the narrow space between Green Coppice Cottage and Judges Corner the proposal would have a limited effect on openness. On this issue I conclude that the proposal would not be materially harmful to the openness of the Green Belt. Other considerations 9. The appellant indicates that a garage could be built as “permitted development” (PD) and that the proposal would be significantly better in design than a PD alternative. The officer report refers to a 2017 Certificate of Lawful Development for a detached garage to the north of the dwelling but no details of a potential PD garage have been submitted with the appeal. The officer report indicates that the PD garage would be smaller than the proposal but in the absence of any details I cannot comment on the relative merits of a PD building as compared with the proposal. Green Belt Balance 10. The Framework indicates that within Green Belts inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. It goes on to indicate that when taking decisions substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. It is evident that the appellant could construct a detached garage as permitted development but I have seen no evidence to indicate that any aesthetic benefit that may arise from the appeal proposal would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt as a result of inappropriate development. Appeal Decision APP/M3645/D/17/3185422 3 11. The very special circumstances needed to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt do not exist and the proposal would therefore conflict with LP Policy DP13 and the Framework Conclusion 12. I have concluded that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. I have not identified any other material harm to the Green Belt. However in the absence of very special circumstances that would clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and taking account of all matters I have concluded that the appeal should not succeed. Clive Tokley INSPECTOR