Retention of triple garage with store room over and 3no. dormer windows to front elevation (built as an alternative to building approved under 16/05960/FULL)

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 March 2018 by R J Maile BSc FRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13 March 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/M2270/D/17/3188928 Orchard House, Crittenden Road, Matfield, Tonbridge, Kent, TN12 7EN.  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 again st a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs P White against the decision of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council.  The application ref: 17/02472/FULL, dated 24 July 2017, was refused by notice dated 12 September 2017.  The development proposed was originally described as “Retention of triple garage with store room over and 3no. dormer windows to front elevation (built as an alternative to building approved under 16/05960/FULL).” Procedural Matter 1. The triple garage the subject of this appeal had been constructed at the time of my site visit. 2. The description of the development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. However, the word ‘retention’ does not describe an act of development, whilst the words in brackets at the end of the original description are superfluous. For these reasons I have omitted them from the description of the development in my formal decision below. Decision 3. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for triple garage with store room over and 3no. dormer windows to front elevation at Orchard House, Crittenden Road, Matfield, Tonbridge, Kent, TN12 7EN, in accordance with the terms of the application ref: 17/02472/FULL, dated 24 July 2017, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following condition: 1. The new building hereby permitted shall only be used for purposes ancillary to the use of the dwelling known as Orchard House. Main Issue 4. The main issue in this case is the effect of the three dormer windows upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Appeal Decision APP/M2270/D/17/3188928 2 Reasons 5. Orchard House comprises a large detached dwelling, which is set back from Crittenden Road on rising ground. The triple garage the subject of this appeal is set away from the main dwelling upon the site of a previous outbuilding. 6. The property stands within a substantial plot. It is beyond the confines to built development and within open countryside. There are a number of other large dwellings within this part of the rural area approached from Crittenden Road. 7. Chapter 7 (Requiring good design) of the Framework1 highlights the need for good design in all new development. I have also had regard to Chapter 11 (Conserving and enhancing the natural environment), which sets out the need for the planning system to protect and enhance valued landscapes. 8. I have been referred to a number of Development Plan policies, including Core Policies 4 and 14 of the adopted Core Strategy2. These seek to protect and enhance the natural environment and to maintain the landscape character and quality of the countryside. 9. Policies LBD1, EN1, EN25 and H11 of the Local Plan3 similarly seek to ensure good design and the protection of the rural landscape, while extensions should be modest and in scale with the original dwelling. Policy EN25 specifically refers to the need for development to have a minimal impact on the landscape character of the locality. This requirement is repeated at paragraph 7.7 of the Council’s adopted SPD4. 10. Of particular relevance to my determination of this appeal is the fact that the Council granted planning permission for an almost identical structure under ref: 16/05960/FULL on 20 September 2016. The only difference between that approved scheme and the triple garage as erected is the incorporation of three small tile hung dormer windows to the front roof slope in place of the permitted three roof lights. 11. The garage has been well designed and is constructed of appropriate materials, while the three dormer windows are small and insignificant. They are sited below the ridge line, align with the three garage doors at ground floor level and are more in keeping with the overall format of the building. 12. Given these factors I have concluded that the new building is appropriate to its setting within the grounds of this large house, set back as it is from Crittenden Road. 13. I am also satisfied that the substitution of three small dormers in place of the roof lights permitted by virtue of planning permission ref: 16/05960/FULL will have a minimal impact only upon the wider countryside. 14. For all of these reasons I have found upon the main issue that the three dormer windows will not be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area as required by national policy in the Framework and the policies of the Development Plan to which I have referred above. 1 The National Planning Policy Framework. 2 The Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Development Framework: Core Strategy (June 2010). 3 The Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Plan (2006). 4 Tunbridge Wells Borough Local Development Framework: Alterations & Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (adopted June 2006). Appeal Decision APP/M2270/D/17/3188928 3 Conditions 15. The Council has put forward a total of two conditions to be imposed should I be minded to allow the appeal. I have considered these against the tests of the Framework and advice provided by the Planning Practice Guidance issued on 6 March 2014. 16. The development has already been carried out. As such, a condition requiring the building to be constructed in accordance with the approved plans is not appropriate. 17. Condition 1 restricts use of the garage building to purposes ancillary to Orchard House. Such a condition is both reasonable and necessary given the location of the property outside the Limits to Built Development and the need to safeguard against any future sub-division of the appeal site to form a separate dwelling that would be harmful to the established character of the area. I note that an identical condition was imposed upon planning permission ref: 16/05960/FULL dated 20 September 2016. Conclusion 18. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. R. J. Maile INSPECTOR