Replacement of an existing garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 December 2017 by Stephen Roscoe BEng MSc CEng MICE an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government Decision date: 10 January 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/G1630/D/17/3187735 Byways, Gravel Walk, Southam, Cheltenham GL52 3NP  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 Ms Claire Morris against the decision of Tewkesbury Borough Council.  The application Ref 17/00610/FUL, dated 5 June 2017, was refused by notice dated 2 August 2017.  The development proposed is the replacement of an existing garage. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Procedural Matters 2. Following the Council’s refusal that is the subject of this appeal, it has adopted the Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy, and I have taken this into account in my decision. Main Issues 3. I consider the main issues in this case to be: i) whether the proposal would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which would have a harmful effect on openness, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework and any relevant development plan policies; and ii) whether the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations, so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Reasons Inappropriate Development 4. The appeal property is situated within the Green Belt. The proposed replacement garage would be materially larger than the garage that it would replace, and it would be significantly increased in terms of its width and height. These increases over the size of the original building would be disproportionate. As a result, the proposal would not lie within any of the exceptions to Appeal Decision APP/G1630/D/17/3187735 2 inappropriate development set out in paragraphs 89 and 90 of the Framework and would conflict with Joint Core Strategy1 (JCS) Policy SD5. 5. The replacement garage would be situated in the same location as the existing garage. This is within a relatively undeveloped area between dwellings and at a slightly higher level than the house at the appeal property. The increased size of the garage would therefore have a harmful effect on the openness of the Green Belt, notwithstanding that it would only be publically visible from Gravel Walk. 6. I therefore conclude that the proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt which would have a harmful effect on openness for the purposes of the Framework. This harm to the Green Belt attracts substantial weight in the decision. I further conclude that the proposal would conflict with JCS Policy SD5. Other Considerations 7. The dwelling within the appeal property is Grade II listed. Whilst the design of the proposed garage would be more compatible with the dwelling than is the case with the existing dwelling, it would be much larger than the existing garage when seen to the rear of the dwelling. It would therefore visually compete with the dwelling to some extent, and it would thus preserve but not enhance the setting of the listed building. In coming to this view, I have paid special attention to the desirability of preserving the heritage asset. The absence of any harm in this regard does not however add any weight in support of the appeal. Conclusion 8. The proposal would have a harmful effect on the Green Belt in terms of inappropriateness and loss of openness. Having taken into account all other matters raised, I have not found any other considerations that would clearly outweigh this harm, and my conclusion is based on the evidence before me in terms of policy as a whole. For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Stephen Roscoe INSPECTOR 1 Gloucester, Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Joint Core Strategy: December 2017