Erection of a detached garage

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 March 2026 by G Ellis BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 07 April 2026 Appeal Ref: 6004920 The Pleasaunce, Guildford Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT23 4EY • 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 J Forbes against the decision of Mole Valley District Council. • The application Ref is MO/2025/02409. • The development proposed is the erection of a detached garage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for the erection of a detached garage at The Pleasaunce, Guildford Road, Bookham, Surrey, KT23 4EY in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref MO/2025/02409, subject to the following conditions: 1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: - PleasaunceG-P-01-Lp - Location plan, PleasaunceG-P-02-500 - Proposed site plan, PleasaunceG-P-03-pPlans -Floor Plans, PleasaunceG-P-04-Ewh - Proposed elevations (with hedge) and PleasaunceG-P-05-ENh - Proposed elevations (without hedge). 3. No development shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a landscaping plan. The plan shall include: an indication of all existing trees and hedgerows on the site, identify those to be retained and set out measures for their protection throughout the course of the construction work; any proposed planting or boundary treatment; and details for the maintenance/management of the front boundary hedge, which is to be retained. The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved. 4. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing house. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area. Appeal Decision 6004920 2 Reasons 3. Pleasaunce is a detached property located at the end of a row of properties to the southern side of Guildford Road. Beyond to the west are open fields, and the area has a semi-rural and verdant character. The house is set back from the road on slightly higher ground with high hedging to the front boundary. 4. The proposed garage would sit immediately behind the front boundary, which, due to its height, would screen the garage. The existing hedge to the side is less established, and there would be some visibility of the garage in views along Guildford Road from the west. 5. The Council’s Extending Your House - Design Guidance for House Extensions and Outbuildings– Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)(2025) advises that garages are usually better set back from the face of the existing house, explaining that utility structures should not dominate the appearance of the house. In this instance, the appeal property has a large frontage. The garage would be set away from the house and positioned in the corner at the opposite end of the frontage to the entrance. As such, the garage would not be imposing on the existing appearance of the host property. 6. The garage is designed with a crown roof, which limits the height, and whilst the main house does not have such a roof form, the mono-pitch roof element and the materials would reflect the existing property. The flat roof would not be prominent, and within the locality, there is a range of building forms and materials. 7. While the proposed garage would be sited further forward, there are garages forward of the house to a number of properties along Guildford Road. On plan, these properties have a staggered alignment and a building line which follows the road. This is not, however, overly defined or visible in actual views along the road, given the different house types, the addition of garages/other structures in a forward position and the landscaping. 8. Situated at the edge of the developed area, the property has a closer relationship with the Green Belt beyond than the other properties. The existing hedging, however, creates a distinction and screening, and vegetation to the frontages and along the road is part of the character and appearance of the area. While I understand the Council’s concerns, if there were no landscaping, this is a well- established hedge and could be conditioned to be retained and maintained. Consequently, any views of the garage would be partial and consistent with the area where buildings are interspersed with greenery. 9. Overall, I find that the garage would not be an overly intrusive or incongruous feature, and therefore, the character and appearance of the host property and the surrounding area would be maintained. Therefore, the proposal would accord with policy EN4 of the Mole Valley Local Plan, policy BKEN2 of the Bookham Neighbourhood Development Plan and the SPD. Together and among other things, these require development to demonstrate good quality design and respect the character and appearance of the surrounding area, including being of an appropriate scale and height, achieving spacing between buildings, and responding to the prevailing pattern of development. Conditions Appeal Decision 6004920 3 10. In addition to the standard timescale condition, I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant plans for certainty. I have also imposed a condition requiring the materials to match the house in the interest of the appearance of the property. 11. The appellant indicates that they would be willing to accept a condition to retain the front boundary hedge. For the reasons set out above and in the interest of the character of the area, I considered that such a condition is necessary to ensure the retention and management of the existing hedge, and to secure any further boundary planting. Given the need to protect the hedge during construction, this has to be a pre-commencement condition. Conclusion 12. For the reasons set out and having regard to all other matters raised, the appeal is allowed. G Ellis INSPECTOR