Sensitive conversion and restoration of the existing garage and detached store in to studio and hobby accommodation ancillary to the main house, erection of a detached garage with alterations

Appeal Decision by John Pearce MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 30th March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6002117 Winding Wood, Tilford Road, Rushmoor, Farnham, Surrey GU10 2ED • 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 Mrs Bridget & Mr Alex Woodhouse against the decision of Waverley Borough Council. • The application Ref is WA/2025/01408. • The development proposed is described as sensitive conversion and restoration of the existing garage and detached store in to studio and hobby accommodation ancillary to the main house, erection of a detached garage with alterations. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matter 2. The description of development in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. Neither of the main parties has provided written confirmation that a revised description of development as set out in the decision notice has been agreed. Accordingly, I have used the description given on the original application form. I do not consider that this has prejudiced any of the parties and I have proceeded with the appeal on this basis. Main Issues 3. The main issues are: • whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt for the purposes of development plan policy and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework); • the effect of the proposal on the openness of the Green Belt; • the effect of the proposed development on protected species, with regard to bats; and • if it is inappropriate, whether the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, would be clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances necessary to justify the development. Appeal Decision 6002117 2 Reasons Whether the proposal is inappropriate development 4. The Framework explains that the fundamental aim of Green Belt Policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open and that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. 5. The appeal site consists of a detached dwelling positioned centrally within extensive grounds. The dwelling is set back from Tilford Road to the rear of a large, wooded area forming the frontage of the site. To the side of the dwelling are two single-storey outbuildings, consisting of a garage and a store. The proposal is for a detached garage and the conversion and alterations to the existing garage and store buildings. The proposed garage would be to the side of the dwelling and forward of the front elevation. The appellant suggests that the garage building would be development comprising a limited infill. 6. Policy RE2 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 1 2018 (LPP1) states that the Metropolitan Green Belt will continue to be protected against inappropriate development in accordance with the Framework. Paragraph 154 of the Framework states that development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of the exceptions applies. Exceptions include limited infilling in villages and limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land (including a material change of use to residential or mixed use including residential), whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. 7. The appellant suggests that the proposed garage would comprise ‘infilling’ and there is no substantive evidence before me that demonstrates that the garage would be partial or complete redevelopment. Neither the Framework nor the Planning Practice Guidance define, collectively or individually, ‘limited infilling’ but to meet these exceptions, development must be limited and must represent infilling. Given the small scale of the proposed garage, the development would be ‘limited’. However, whilst the garage would be close to the existing dwelling, it would be positioned away from the front and side boundaries of the site. Moreover, the garage building would be distant from other surrounding development beyond the site boundaries. Consequently, the development would not comprise infilling and would therefore not meet the exceptions set out in the Framework. 8. The Council consider that the proposed conversion of the existing outbuildings would not be inappropriate development. Based on the evidence before me, including the limited external alterations proposed, I see no reason to disagree with this conclusion. 9. Therefore, the proposal would be inappropriate development which is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt. Consequently, the proposal would conflict with Policy RE2 of the LPP1 and Policy DM14 of the Waverley Borough Local Plan Part 2 2023 (LPP2), and the Framework, which collectively seek to protect the Green Belt from harm. Appeal Decision 6002117 3 Openness 10. The Framework identifies the essential characteristics of Green Belts as being their openness and their permanence. Openness has both a spatial and a visual aspect. This means that the absence of visual intrusion does not in itself mean that there is no impact on the openness of the Green Belt. Equally, this does not mean that the openness of the Green Belt has no visual dimension and thus both aspects need to be considered. 11. The substantial mature landscaping to the site boundaries, including along the frontage to Tilford Road, would provide considerable screening of the proposal. Accordingly, the visual effect of the proposal on the surrounding area would be negligible. Nevertheless, the additional scale and massing of the development would lead to a harmful reduction in the spatial openness of the Green Belt. 12. For these reasons, the proposal would harm the openness of the Green Belt. The development would therefore conflict with Policy RE2 of the LPP1, Policy DM14 of the LPP2 and the Framework in this regard. Protected species 13. The Council’s second reason for refusal relates to the failure to provide sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposal would not have an adverse impact upon bats, having regard to their status as protected species under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and as European Protected Species under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. 14. The appellant has provided photographs of the existing buildings, which are proposed to be converted. The buildings appear to be in reasonable condition and used in association with the dwelling at the site. While the images and my own observations indicate that bats are unlikely to be present in the buildings, there is no convincing evidence before me which clarifies whether there are protected species present and how the proposal would affect them. 15. I conclude that it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the proposal would not have a harmful effect on protected species, with regard to bats. The development therefore conflicts with Policy NE1 of the LPP1 and Policy DM1 of the LPP2, which collectively seek to conserve and enhance biodiversity within Waverley, including the recovery of species populations and avoid negative impacts upon biodiversity. Other considerations 16. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Substantial weight should be given to harm to the Green Belt and ‘very special circumstances’ will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reasons of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. 17. The appellant has drawn my attention to other garage buildings in the area, including properties at Grange Road, Wellesley Road, Eglington Road, Lowicks Road and Tilford Road. Whilst there may be other similar development in the area, I have not been presented with sufficient details, such as plans and planning permissions, to make a suitable comparison. As such, I cannot be certain that the Appeal Decision 6002117 4 circumstances are similar to the appeal proposal before me. In any event, each proposal should be considered on its individual merits and with appropriate regard to the development plan and any material considerations. Consequently, this consideration carries limited weight. 18. The site is located within the Surrey Hills National Landscape (NL). Paragraph 189 of the Framework requires that great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in the NL. I am also mindful of the statutory duty to seek to further purpose of conserving and enhancing the landscape, scenic and natural beauty of the NL. The Council consider that the proposal would have an appropriate design and given the characteristics of the site, would not harm the overall character and appearance of the area including the NL. I find no reason to take a different view given the scale, design and discreet position of the development. In addition, the proposal would not result in any harm the highway safety or to the living conditions of the occupants of neighbouring dwellings. Nonetheless, the absence of harm is a neutral factor and therefore do not weigh in favour of the proposal. 19. I find that the other considerations in this case, as set out above, do not clearly outweigh the totality of the harm to the Green Belt that I have identified. Consequently, the very special circumstances necessary to justify the appeal development do not exist. The appeal development therefore conflicts with Policy RE2 of the LPP1, Policy DM14 of the LPP2 and the Framework. Conclusion 20. The proposal would not accord with the development plan as a whole. The other considerations in this case do not indicate that a decision should be made otherwise than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. John Pearce INSPECTOR