Detached two-storey garage at The Heatherlands, Commonside, Boundary

What was proposed

The application sought retrospective permission for a largely built, two-storey detached garage with a pitched roof and storage above.

“This a resubmission application which seeks retrospective permission for a large two storey detached garage that has been largely built. The garage is finished in red brick dual and features a pitched gable roof. The roof tiles and first floor fenestration have not been fitted. The garage is approximately 6.7 metres wide, 9.2 metres long and 6.4 metres to the roof ridge, 3.6 metres to the eaves.”

“The previous application (ref SMD/2025/0441) was withdrawn prior to a decision at Planning Committee following concerns raised by the case officer on height, scale and positioning of the garage relative to the property and conflict with Green Belt policy.”

Officer report

The site and its history

The site is in the Green Belt and open countryside, with a bungalow, garage and outbuilding; an earlier garage application was withdrawn.

“The site is located within the Green Belt on the southern edge of the settlement of Boundary in the open countryside. The site is approximately 3km west of Cheadle. The site itself comprises of a detached two storey red brick garage associated with a detached red brick single storey bungalow. There is also a timber outbuilding that opens onto a patio and balustrade railing to the northeast of the site.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the garage was inappropriate in the Green Belt, harmed openness and was too large and dominant beside the bungalow.

“The development is unacceptable both in principle and in terms of design. By virtue of its scale, bulk and height over the demolished buildings, the development would amount to being materially larger than the buildings it has / will replace. The development is therefore considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt which by definition is harmful to the Green Belt.”

“The site is located in the Green Belt where the construction of new buildings is regarded as inappropriate development, unless it meets one of the exceptions set out in paragraph 154 of the NPPF. The outbuilding is materially larger than the buildings it has replaced and therefore amounts to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, which by definition is harmful. In this case there is also harm to openness arising from the increased scale and mass of the proposal.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

Eleven public comments and the parish council supported the proposal, while highways raised no objection subject to a private-use condition.

“Eleven public comments were received, all in support, citing a positive design, and improvement on previous outbuildings which it replaces.”

“It is considered the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the adopted highway and therefore there are no objection subject to the following condition:”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent, the applicant and a local resident spoke for the application, with the resident’s statement read by the Legal Advisor.

Members’ discussion

Members considered that removing the front overhang made the proposal more acceptable after hearing the applicant’s comments.

“Members acknowledged the comments made by the applicant and considered that the removal of the overhang at the front of the property made the proposal more acceptable.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee approved the application contrary to the officers’ recommendation, finding it accorded with policies SS10, SS2, SS1 and DC1.

“That contrary to officers’ recommendation the application be APPROVED for the following reasons - The development was in accordance with policies SS10, SS2, SS1 and DC1”

Minutes

Conditions attached

Delegated powers were granted to impose conditions requiring the building to remain ancillary and the existing front building to be removed.

“That delegated powers be Granted to the Head of Development Services and the Chair to impose conditions to include the following: - the building remains ancillary to the existing property and not used as a separate dwelling - the removal of the existing building at the front of site…”

“That in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Head of Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, provided thar the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.”

Minutes