New garage and home office following demolition of former stables and storage outbuildings

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 June 2018 by R J Maile BSc FRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 6th July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/R3650/D/18/3199708 Shamley Wood House, Woodhill Lane, Shamley Green, Guildford, Surrey, GU5 0SP. • 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 Rob and Mrs Claire Merriman against the decision of Waverley Borough Council. • The application ref: WA/2017/2192, dated 20 November 2017, was refused by notice dated 12 January 2018. • The development proposed is new garage and home office following demolition of former stables and storage outbuildings. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for new garage and home office following demolition of former stables and storage outbuildings at Shamley Wood House, Woodhill Lane, Shamley Green, Guildford, Surrey, GU5 0SP, in accordance with the terms of the application ref: WA/2017/2192, dated 20 November 2017, subject to the conditions set out in Annex A to this decision. Main Issues 2. The main issues in this case are: a) Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt for the purposes of national policy and the policies of the Development Plan. b) The effect of the development upon the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it. c) The impact of the development upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area. d) If the proposal 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. Appeal Decision APP/R3650/D/18/3199708 2 Reasons a) Whether inappropriate development. 3. The two structures that are proposed to be replaced consist of a single storey stable block, together with a smaller outbuilding to the rear. To the front there are areas of hardstanding. Adjacent to the stables are two garage buildings (a triple and a double respectively). They are of brick construction with rendered elevations under steep pitched and tiled roofs. 4. The stable block and outbuilding to the rear form part of an extensive rural estate, including a very substantial two storey detached dwelling opposite the appeal site to the southeast. There is also a plant nursery, a deer park and a smaller detached house (Shamley Wood Cottage), all of which are within the same ownership. 5. The appeal site is within the Metropolitan Green Belt, the Surrey Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (‘AONB’) and an Area of Great Landscape Value (‘AGLV’). 6. The scheme before me proposes the demolition of the stables and the smaller outbuilding to the rear and the erection of a replacement building comprising a garage and storage area at ground floor level and a home office within the roof space, incorporating small windows within the gable ends and roof lights to the front and rear roof slopes. 7. National policy in the Framework1 states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances (see paragraph 87). Paragraph 89 does allow for some exceptions, including the replacement of a building provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. 8. Policy RE2 of the recently adopted Local Plan Part 12 replaces “saved” Policies C1 and C3 of the Local Plan 20023 as referred to in the refusal notice. This replacement policy largely reflects national policy in the Framework, such that I have accorded it full weight in my determination of this appeal. 9. The current scheme reflects the character, scale, height and materials used in the two adjacent garage buildings. The footprint of the replacement building would represent a 17 per cent reduction from that of the existing stables and adjacent storage outbuilding. There is only a marginal increase of 6 per cent in the volume of the replacement building and an overall increase in floor area of 5.4 per cent. 10. Accordingly, by reference to national policy at paragraph 89 of the Framework I conclude that the new building would not be materially larger than those it would replace. However, the use of the replacement building for the garaging of cars and, in particular, of the loft area as a home office would breach the requirement of national policy that any new building should be in the same use as that to be replaced. 1 The National Planning Policy Framework. 2 Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 1: Strategic Policies and Sites (adopted February 2018). 3 Waverley Borough Council Local Plan 2002 (adopted April 2002). Appeal Decision APP/R3650/D/18/3199708 3 11. For this reason, I have found upon the first main issue that the proposal would be inappropriate development within the Green Belt for the purposes of national policy and the policies of the Development Plan. b) Effect upon openness of Green Belt. 12. As referred to above, there would only be a very marginal increase in floor area and volume associated with the replacement building. Given its siting, the new structure would be screened by the substantial main house, the adjacent garage buildings and by the trees and other planting to the southwest and northeast. 13. These factors lead me to find upon the second main issue that development as proposed would not have a harmful effect upon the openness of the Green Belt or the purposes of including land in it, as required by national policy at Chapter 9 (Protecting Green Belt land) of the Framework and Policy RE2 of the Local Plan Part 1. c) Impact upon character and appearance. 14. The appeal site is in an elevated location within open countryside beyond the settlement of Shamley Green. It is also within the Surrey Hills AONB and, in recognition of the quality of the landscape, a designated AGLV. 15. “Saved” Policies D1 and D4 of the Local Plan 2002 and Policy RE3 of the Local Plan Part 1 seek to ensure that development within such areas does not harm the visual character and distinctiveness of the locality. Proposals should be appropriate to the site in terms of their scale, height, form and appearance. 16. The building would be taller than those it would replace. It would nevertheless be appropriate to its setting having regard not only to the scale of Shamley Wood House but, more importantly, the bulk, height, form and appearance of the immediately adjacent garage buildings. 17. The replacement structure has been carefully designed to create an attractive outbuilding, including a subservient storage wing to the southeast and a small gable projection to the front elevation to match the use of gable projections in Shamley Wood House. The use of materials to match the adjoining buildings will ensure that it complements its surroundings, as required by “saved” Policy D4. 18. Given the modest increase in height and floor area as compared to the existing structures I am also satisfied that the new building would sit comfortably within its surroundings and that it would not adversely affect the visual amenities and character of the Surrey Hills AONB or the designated AGLV. 19. Accordingly, I find upon the third main issue that development as proposed would not have a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area and that it would accord with the requirements of the Development Plan policies to which I have referred above d) Other considerations. 20. The Framework does not provide guidance as to what constitutes a materially larger building. 21. My attention has been directed to “saved” Policy RD2 (a) of the Local Plan 2002, that states: "... proposals which would involve an increase in floorspace of more Appeal Decision APP/R3650/D/18/3199708 4 than 10 per cent are likely to be regarded as materially larger." This provides guidance as to an assessment of the current proposal, where the floorspace increase is only 5.4 per cent. Furthermore, the footprint of the replacement structure would be 17 per cent less than the two buildings that it is proposed to demolish. 22. I have also been referred to the Council’s Residential Extensions SPD4 which, under section 9.22 (Garages and Carports) recommends that garages should be designed to complement the character of the house and built of similar materials with a similar roof pitch. The main dwelling has a strong emphasis upon projecting gable features, which the replacement building would mimic, whilst the new structure would be smaller and with a lower ridge height than one of the two adjacent garages that are to be retained. Green Belt Balancing Exercise 23. I have found above that the replacement building would comprise inappropriate development within the Green Belt. This, by definition, is harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. 24. The increased floor area of the proposal would be balanced by the reduction in footprint. This has led me to conclude that there is merit in the scheme before me, particularly given the high quality of the design and the relationship of the replacement structure with the two retained buildings and, indeed, with the principal dwelling. 25. I have also found that development as proposed would not be harmful to the openness of the Green Belt; neither would it adversely impact upon the visual amenities and character of the Surrey Hills AONB or the designated AGLV. 26. I find that these factors, in combination with the other considerations in this case, clearly outweigh the harm that I have identified and, looking at the case as a whole, I consider that very special circumstances exist which justify the development. Conditions 27. I have considered the two conditions put forward by the Council against the tests of the Framework and advice provided by the Planning Practice Guidance issued on 6 March 2014. I find both of them to be reasonable and necessary. My reasons for the conditions are: 28. Condition 1 is the standard commencement condition imposed in accordance with section 91(1) (a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Condition 2, which requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans, provides certainty. Conclusion 29. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. R. J. Maile INSPECTOR 4 Waverley Borough Council Residential Extensions Supplementary Planning Document (adopted October 2010). Appeal Decision APP/R3650/D/18/3199708 5 Schedule of Conditions Annex A 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan: – scale 1:2500. Existing Block Plan: (01 of 02) – scale 1:500. Proposed Block Plan: (02 of 02) – scale 1:500. Drawing no. 1676.4C: Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations – scale 1:100. Existing Elevations: Outbuilding 1 (01 of 04) – scale 1:100. Existing Floor Plan: Outbuilding 1 (02 of 04) – scale 1:100. Existing Elevations: Outbuilding 2 (03 of 04) – scale 1:100. Existing Floor Plan: Outbuilding 2 (04 of 04) – scale 1:100.