Erection of garage and store building to serve dwelling

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 October 2018 by John D Allan BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30 October 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/Y3615/D/18/3209118 The Bungalow, Shophouse Lane, Albury, GU5 9EQ  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 D Chandler against the decision of Guildford Borough Council.  The application Ref 18/P/01065, dated 31 May 2018, was refused by notice dated 2 August 2018.  The development proposed is the erection of garage and store building to serve dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of garage and store building to serve dwelling at The Bungalow, Shophouse Lane, Albury, GU5 9EQ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 18/P/01065, dated 31 May 2018, subject to the following conditions: 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: Location Plan at scale 1:2500, Existing Floor Plan, Sheet 01 Existing Block Plan, Sheet 01 Proposed Block Plan, Sheet 03 Proposed Elevations, and Sheet 04 Proposed Floor Plan. Main Issues 2. The main issues are whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and any relevant development plan policies, and the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area having regard to its location within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV). Appeal Decision APP/Y3615/D/18/3209118 2 Reasons 3. The appeal property is a detached, chalet bungalow that was built as a replacement dwelling under planning permission granted in 2014 (Ref 14/P/ 01875). The site lies within the Green Belt, an AONB and an AGLV. 4. The Framework explicitly states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and that a local planning authority should regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate within Green Belt. 5. Despite its age, Policy RE2 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan (LP) 2003 is broadly consistent with the approach of national policy in that it only permits limited extensions or alterations to existing dwellings. It makes cross reference to LP Policy H9 which deals specifically with extensions to dwellings within the countryside. This policy lists 4 criteria against which such proposals will be judged. It goes on to state that for dwellings in the Green Belt there will be a presumption against extensions which result in disproportionate additions taking into account the size of the original dwelling. The Policy’s supporting text explains that for the purpose of Green Belt policy the original building means the dwelling and domestic outbuildings as existing on 1 July 1948; or if no dwelling existed on that date then "original building" means the dwelling as first built after 1 July 1948 excluding any extensions or outbuildings built after completion of the dwelling. It also goes on to state that garages or domestic outbuildings (incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling) will be considered as an extension to the dwelling. 6. The Framework gives seven exceptions where the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt should not be considered as inappropriate development. These include the extension or alteration of a building provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. There is no dispute between the parties that the proposed garage and store would be incidental to the use of the dwelling and that it should therefore be considered as an extension to the dwelling having regard to Policy H9. 7. The proposal would not result in the loss of a small dwelling. Neither would it impact upon the amenities enjoyed by the occupants of any adjacent buildings. The Council is satisfied that the outbuilding would be relatively modest in size compared with the scale of the existing building and that its design and materials would be in keeping with the rural character of the site and surrounding area, without any harm to the AONB or AGLV. I do not disagree with these findings. As such there would be no conflict with criteria 1- 4 of LP Policy H9. Having regard to the remainder of LP Policy H9 and Chapter 13 of the Framework, the principal consideration that remains is whether the proposal would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. 8. The Framework defines an original building as being a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was originally built. In my view there is an inconsistency between the Council’s definition and the definition within the Framework. The Council takes the view that any replacement building does not become the new original building. However, as Appeal Decision APP/Y3615/D/18/3209118 3 the building that stood on the site in 1948 no longer exists, it strikes me as logical that any assessment in terms of size increase, which would ordinarily include judgements relating also to mass, bulk, height and design rather than just mathematical calculations over floorspace, should relate to the replacement building rather than the building it replaced. 9. The appellants have referred to several other appeal decisions. Taken with the three High Court judgements that are referenced within one of those decisions (Ref APP/Y3615/A/08/2070892), these all support the definition that is clearly stated within the Framework. Given also the fact that the LP is of some age and pre-dates the Framework, I have relied upon the latter, being an up-to- date statement of government policy, and have taken the original building to be that which was built in 2014. As there was a building on the site in 1948, I am also satisfied that my approach is consistent with the definition that is given within the supporting text for Policy P2 (Green Belt) in the Emerging Local Plan. This states “For the purposes of this policy, the original building is defined as the building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was built originally”. 10. According to undisputed figures, the floor area of the existing dwelling is 142.8sqm. The proposed double garage would measure 33.4 sqm, being an uplift in floor area of 23%. In mathematical terms this is modest. I am aware that the original permission included a detached garage that has not been built but which would be capable of still being constructed as part of the extant planning permission. Nevertheless, having regard to the Council’s approach to outbuildings, that structure would conceivably count as part of the building’s original floorspace. The percentage increase that is proposed as part of this appeal would therefore drop as a proportion. Even if I am wrong, and the floorspace of the approved garage is added to the floorspace of the appeal proposal, and both are taken as an accumulation of additions to the original dwelling, by my estimate the percentage increase would still be below 40% and not unreasonable. 11. Whichever way I take this, having regard to the floorspace calculations and the accepted modest scale and visual impact of the proposal, it would not amount to a disproportionate addition to the original dwelling. For this reason, the erection of the garage and store would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Implicit within that conclusion is that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact upon the essential characteristics of the Green Belt, namely its openness and permanence. There would therefore be no conflict with LP Policies RE2 or H9 or with the Framework. Neither have I been presented with any evidence that there would be conflict with Emerging Local Plan Policy P2, which has also been referenced within the decision notice. 12. There is a suggestion by the Council that the proposal would encroach beyond the residential curtilage of the property and into agricultural land. There is no substantive evidence to support this assertion and from my own observations the position of the proposed garage, adjacent to an existing turning area, would be on a sliver of land that lies between an access drive leading to The Bungalow and the highway along Shophouse Lane. I could detect no obvious agricultural purpose for the land that could potentially be lost. In any event, Appeal Decision APP/Y3615/D/18/3209118 4 almost the entire part of this land would ostensibly remain open. Furthermore, I have not been directed to any development plan policy conflict in this specific regard. Conditions 13. A condition specifying the relevant drawings is necessary as this provides certainty. The proposal is for the building to be clad in timber weather boarding, which is appropriate to its rural location. A condition requiring its materials of construction to match the existing dwelling would therefore be unreasonable. I note that it is proposed to roof the building with tiles to match the existing building but given the detached position of the outbuilding in relation to the dwelling it is not necessary to control this by condition. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given, and in the absence of any other conflict with the development plan, the appeal is allowed. John D Allan INSPECTOR