Erection of a detached double garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 12 December 2025 by N Bromley BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 16 December 2026. Appeal Ref: 6001151 Plot 2, Mayfield Farm, Bear Lane, Henley-in-Arden B95 5JJ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Moss against the decision of Stratford-on-Avon District Council. • The application Ref is 25/01637/FUL. • The development proposed is erection of a detached double garage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the erection of a detached double garage at Plot 2, Mayfield Farm, Bear Lane, Henley-in-Arden, B95 5JJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01637/FUL, 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 drawing numbers: 3999-21; 3999-24 rev A; and 4165-23 rev A. 3) The external materials of the double garage hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Main Issue 2. Whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and any relevant development plan policies. Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises a detached bungalow, set within a small housing development currently under construction. The bungalow has a generous footprint and a large roof space. An extensive parking area and hardstanding is located to the side of the house. The site is located within the Green Belt, near to Henley-in- Arden. 4. The Framework identifies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, with the essential characteristics of the Green Belt being their openness and permanence. The Framework goes on to state that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Appeal Decision 6001151 2 5. Paragraph 154 of the Framework sets out that the construction of new buildings should be regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt, other than in a few exceptions including (c) the extension or alteration of a building provided it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building. Policy CS.10 of the Stratford-on-Avon Core Strategy 2011 to 2031 (the CS) includes a similar exception and is therefore broadly consistent with the Framework. 6. As an ancillary building with a domestic appearance, sited immediately next to the side of the house, the proposed garage would have a clear functional relationship with the host property. As a consequence, and with due regard to the two cited judgments, Warwick1 and Sevenoaks2, it would be reasonable to treat the proposed garage as a normal domestic adjunct to the appeal property, such that it would amount to an extension to the dwelling. 7. The proposed garage would be a single storey building and the evidence suggests that it would result in a 34% increase in floor area over and above the original dwelling. It would have a lower ridge height than the bungalow and it would be viewed as an ancillary domestic garage, which would sit comfortably alongside the main dwelling. In addition, the proposal would be set back from the front elevation of the main house and views of it from certain parts of the street would be limited. As such, and within this context, the proposed development would not constitute a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original building. 8. Reference has been made to condition 12 of the original outline planning permission3 for the housing development, which removed permitted development rights (PD rights) for, amongst other things, outbuildings. The Council also refer to a previous appeal decision4 which sought to vary condition 12 of that planning permission. 9. I do not have the full details of the outline planning permission, or a copy of the appeal decision. Nevertheless, even though PD rights have been removed there is no substantive evidence before me that the building has been extended since the original permission, and the removal of PD rights does not alter my findings. Indeed, as I am required to do, I have determined the case before me on the site- specific circumstances and on its own merits, concluding that the proposal would not be a disproportionate addition. Other similar proposals along the road and elsewhere would follow the same approach and I am not persuaded that the proposal would set a harmful precedent locally. 10. For the above reasons, I conclude that the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, as it satisfies paragraph 154 c) of the Framework. It would also accord with Policy CS.10 of the CS. Given the proposed development would not be inappropriate development there is no need for me to consider its impact on openness. Other Matters 11. Henley-in-Arden Parish Council object to the proposed development citing that it would conflict with the Neighbourhood Development Plan. However, no specific 1 Warwick DC v SSLUHC, Mr J Storer & Mrs A Lowe [2022] EWHC 2145 (Admin) 2 Sevenoaks District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment and Dawe (1997) 3 Council Ref: 15/03517/OUT 4 Appeal Ref: APP/J3720/W/17/3167623 Appeal Decision 6001151 3 policies or other reasons for the objection have been referenced, and given my findings above, I have found no justification to dismiss the appeal. Conditions 12. In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have also, in the interests of certainty, attached a condition specifying the approved plans. A condition to secure that the proposed external materials match those of the original house is necessary in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the host property and surrounding area. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. N Bromley INSPECTOR