It was refused because it involved an excessive amount of new floor space.
The inspector found that the conversion element would be minimal compared to the extension, which would add more than 25 per cent to the existing house's floor space. Since the garage lay some distance from the main dwelling, he judged that it would not be sufficiently close to justify the appellant's claim that the accommodation would be ancillary to the man residential use. In his view, it would amount to the introduction of a separate dwelling that would harm the area's character and contravene countryside policies.
DCS No: OT100-045-710; Inspector: Peter Bentham-Hill; Hearing.