Detached double garage with part basement and roof void storage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 6 October 2020 by M Philpott BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 8th October 2020 Appeal Ref: APP/M3645/D/20/3255165 The Knoll, Park View Road, Woldingham CR3 7DN • 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 and Mrs Hulley against the decision of Tandridge District Council. • The application Ref TA/2020/673, dated 1 April 2020, was refused by notice dated 27 May 2020. • The development proposed is detached double garage with part basement and roof void storage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for detached double garage with part basement and roof void storage at The Knoll, Park View Road, Woldingham CR3 7DN in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref TA/2020/673, dated 1 April 2020, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: TK/20-01; TK/20-TOPO; TK/20-OS Rev. A; TK/20-02 Rev. A; TK/20-03 Rev. A. 3) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used for the existing dwellinghouse. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises a large detached dwellinghouse set within a spacious plot which is bordered by trees and hedges. Park View Road slopes upwards across the property’s frontage from its vehicular access. Station Road is located beyond and at a lower height than its rear garden. The area is characterised by similarly large houses of varying designs that are set within highly vegetated surroundings. 4. The proposed building would be set back substantially from Station Road and be sited further from Park View Road than the house. It would be screened Appeal Decision APP/M3645/D/20/3255165 2 from both roads to a significant extent due to the changing land levels and the vegetation at the boundaries of the site and the neighbouring properties. It would thus not appear prominent within the streetscene of either road. 5. Although the building would have a deeper form than the house, this would not be readily apparent from the roads. Glimpses of its 3 storey rear elevation would be possible from Station Road and unrestricted views of the 2 storey front elevation would be possible from the vehicular access. However, the building would be much narrower and have lower ridge and eaves heights than the house and appear proportionate and subservient as a result. It would be set back sufficiently from Park View Road that it would not appear awkward behind the elevated road or obscure or dominate the house frontage. 6. The building’s gabled elevations would be reflective of the house’s gables and hanging tiles and timber boarding is proposed above facing brickwork in a similar manner to the house. It would clearly appear as an ancillary building within the property due to its proximity to the house, its size and the garage doors in its front elevation. No vegetation is proposed to be removed to the front or side of the property and the existing land levels would be largely unaltered. The building would be well integrated within the plot and the vegetation to the front of the property would continue to contribute to the character of the area. 7. The proposal would be respectful of the character and appearance of the area. It therefore accords with Policy CSP18 of the Tandridge District Core Strategy, Policy DP7 of the Tandridge District Local Plan: Part 2 – Detailed Policies and Policy L1 of the Woldingham Neighbourhood Plan, which provide design criteria for development in the interests of protecting local character. Conditions 8. A condition to require the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans is necessary as this provides certainty. In order to protect the character and appearance of the area, a condition is needed to require that the materials used in the external surfaces of the building match the house. 9. The Council has suggested that a condition is imposed to require that the building is only used for purposes which are incidental to the residential use of the house. The building is proposed to be used for such purposes and there is no evidence which indicates that it will be used as a separate dwelling or for any other purposes. Additionally, if it is not built or used as proposed, or there is a future material change of use to the building, then another grant of planning permission would be required. The condition is therefore unnecessary. Conclusion 10. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted, subject to the conditions identified. Mark Philpott INSPECTOR