Erection of detached garage & rear single storey extension

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 February 2026 by K Stephens BSc (Hons) MTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 04 March 2026 Appeal Ref: 6003685 The Cottage, Meer End Road, Honiley, Nr Kenilworth CV8 1PW  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 Sam Carter-Smith against the decision of Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council.  The application Ref is PL/2025/01686/MINFHO.  The development proposed is erection of detached garage & rear single storey extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a detached garage & rear single storey extension at The Cottage, Meer End Road, Honiley, Nr Kenilworth CV8 1PW in accordance with the terms of the application Ref: PL/2025/01686/MINFHO subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun within three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans/drawings:  Proposed Location Plan  Proposed Block Plan  Drawing no.25/001/01 New detached garage Proposed Floor Plans & Elevations;  Drawing no. 25/003/01 Existing & Proposed Floor Plan,  Drawing no. 25/003/04 Proposed Elevations. 3) The external materials of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing dwelling. Main Issue 2. The main issues in this appeal are:  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, and  If the proposed development constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, would the harm by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, be clearly outweighed by other considerations. If so, would this amount to the very special circumstances required to justify the proposal. Appeal Decision 6003685 2 Reasons 3. Framework paragraph 142 states that the Government attaches great importance to Green Belts, the fundamental aim of which is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open, and that the essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence. Framework paragraph 143 sets out the five purposes of Green Belts. 4. 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. Development in the Green Belt is inappropriate unless one of the exceptions listed in Framework paragraphs 154 and 155 applies. Exception 154c) allows for “the extension or alteration of a building, provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.”1 5. Policy P17 of the Solihull Local Plan (the Local Plan) is a broad brush policy that seeks, amongst other things, to safeguard the Green Belt from inappropriate development. Development involving the replacement, extension or alteration of buildings in the Green Belt will not be permitted if it will harm the need to retain smaller more affordable housing or the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. Whilst the Policy provides a greater level of detail on certain matters, I am satisfied that Policy P17 is broadly consistent with the Framework. 6. As tighter restrictions apply to buildings in the Green Belt, the Council’s House Extension Guidelines Supplementary Planning Document (the House Extension SPD) provides further guidance. Extensions will be limited to no more than 40% of the original habitable floor space measured externally. This limitation does not apply to properties within established ribbons of development, where a ribbon of development is defined as a “continuous run of dwellings which closely relate to one another and not sporadic”. The appeal property is a detached dwelling sitting is sizeable grounds. I saw there were a number of dwellings located along this side of the road, well-spaced out and well set back from the road such that some are not seen as part of the roadside, and they are not closely related to each other. Even if they were regarded as “ribbon development”, the appeal property is the last one and the House Extension SPD makes clear that the 40% limit applies to properties on the ends of ribbons of development. 7. The proposal would involve replacing a relatively modest sized, timber outbuilding with a corrugated metal pitched-roof at the rear of the property, with a taller and wider, brick single storey extension with a pitched slate roof. The extension would also incorporate a small yard area that currently links the house to the back of the utility room. This yard space is currently enclosed by some walls of the house, timber fencing and the end of the outbuilding and is covered over with a polycarbonate roof and has a make-shift character and appearance. The resulting proposed extension would link the internal spaces - the existing sun lounge would become a dining room, and the extension incorporating the yard area would become a new sun lounge measuring about 8.2m x 3.3m. The new extension would align with the side of the house/existing integral garage/utility and would not extend out into the garden any further than the existing outbuilding. 1 In the Framework glossary ‘original building’ is defined as “a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 or, if constructed after 1 July 1948, as it was built originally.” Appeal Decision 6003685 3 8. The proposal would also involve works to the existing single storey extension across the back of the property. The existing pitched roof and semi-pitched roof with roof lantern over the kitchen/breakfast area/sun lounge (which would become the new dining room) would be removed and replaced with a continuous flat roof. 9. In addition, on the other side of the dwelling on a part of the lawn at the edge of the gravel drive, a pitched-roof, brick and tile, detached double garage would be built, with a footprint of about 7.4 metres x 6.4 metres. The plans show there would be an internal staircase to an office and shower room in the roof space, with a wide dormer window on the rear roof slope. 10. There is no dispute between the parties that previous extensions that have been added to the property over time have seen the property already extended by about 56%, which exceeds the 40% limit. The appellant calculates that the proposed extension and garage would increase the enlargements to more than 90%. Therefore, the proposal would result is a significant numerical exceedance of the 40% floor space limit set out in the House Extension SPD and see the floor space of the property almost doubled in size. 11. That said, whilst the Council’s House Extension SPD focusses on floor area, proportionality can involve consideration of other factors such as bulk and massing or the extent of sprawl. 12. The proposal would make the outbuilding and yard become part of the main house. However, the extension itself would have a similar footprint to the outbuilding and yard combined. Whilst the extension would be a bit taller and wider than the structures it would replace, it would have a compact form and be built of brick with a slate roof to match the materials used on the rest of the house. The effect would be a very modest change to the appearance of the property, and the matching materials would have a unifying and more harmonious effect on the composition of the rear elevation of the property as a whole. 13. The proposed extension with its increased dimensions and height would result in a small increase in the volume of the property. However, this would be largely offset by the removal of the pitched roofs over the kitchen/breakfast area/sun lounge. Removing these roofs would also result in visual betterment, as the existing first floor windows of the main house would be better revealed and appreciated. Hence installing a flat roof over the existing rear extension would serve to re-proportion the scale of the existing rear elevation. 14. In effect, the proposed extension and replacement flat roof would effectively reconfigure the property, rather than substantially extend it. Furthermore, the various components would be well integrated into the whole, and with each other. As a result, the extension and alterations would not visually appear as disproportionate elements added to the property and the property would not look noticeably bigger as a result. The dwelling would retain its ‘cottagey’ character and appearance. 15. The proposed garage would introduce a sizeable new building in the grounds to the side of the house and in close proximity to it. The part of the lawn where the garage would be sited sits between the side of the house and the well screened plot boundary. The property itself is also well screened from the road behind a tall brick wall and solid timber gates. Being adjacent to the edge of the gravelled drive, the erection of a garage in this location would not look out of place, and with materials Appeal Decision 6003685 4 to match the adjacent dwelling it would be in keeping and not unduly large, although its design is unremarkable but the Council has not raised any concerns about its actual design. 16. There is no doubt that the proposed extension, roof alterations and detached garage would see the floor space of the property significantly extended in numerical terms to almost 90%, exceeding the Council’s 40% guidance limit. However, taking the various other factors described above into account I find the proposal would not amount to disproportionate alterations and additions to the building and hence would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt under Framework exemption 154c). 17. In terms of Local Plan Policy P17, there is nothing to suggest that the dwelling needs to be retained as smaller affordable housing. In terms of Green Belt purposes, the Planning Policy Guidance makes clear that large built-up areas, the merging of towns, and preserving the setting of historic towns do not relate to villages, nor is the site within an urban area to assist urban regeneration. Therefore, these purposes of the Green Belt are not relevant in this instance. Furthermore, the site is well contained within the existing domestic curtilage and well screened such that the proposed development would not encroach into the open countryside and hence would not conflict with the remaining Green Belt purpose. 18. Despite some conflict with the Council’s House Extension SPD, I find the development would not constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt under the terms set out in the Framework and would not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. Accordingly, it would comply with Local Plan Policy P17. 19. Under the terms of Framework exception 154c), where development would not be inappropriate in the Green Belt there is no additional requirement to assess the impact of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt, or whether very special circumstances exist to justify the development. Conclusion 20. For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal be granted, subject to conditions that are necessary to limit the lifespan of the planning permission, to provide certainty regarding approved plans and in the interests of safeguarding the character and appearance of the area. K Stephens INSPECTOR