Erection of an outbuilding
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Character & Appearance
Rural Impact
Heritage & Conservation
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 28 September 2020
by S. Rennie BSc (Hons), BA (Hons), MA, MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of Stat e
Decision date: 15 October 2020
Appeal Ref: APP/W0340/D/20/3254826
Ogdown House, North Heath, Chieveley, Berkshire RG20 8UG
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs B & S Carter against the decision of West Berkshire
District Council.
• The application Ref 20/00762/HOUSE, dated 20 March 2020, was refused by notice
dated 1 June 2020.
• The development proposed is the erection of an outbuilding.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of an
outbuilding at Ogdown House, North Heath, Chieveley, Berkshire RG20 8UG in
accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 20/00762/HOUSE, dated 20
March 2020, subject to the conditions set out in the attached Schedule.
Application for costs
2. An application for costs was made by Mr & Mrs B & S Carter against West
Berkshire District Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.
Main Issue
3. The main issue is the effect of the development on the character and
appearance of the area, including its effect on the qualities of the North Wessex
Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).
Reasons
4. The proposal is for an outbuilding within the curtilage of a house set within a
rural landscape. The site is also within the North Wessex Down AONB. This is a
large rural area of chalk downland which has been designated due to its natural
beauty. My attention has also been drawn to the North Wessex Downs AONB
Management Plan 2019-2024 which provides information on this designated
area and its qualities.
5. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires that great
weight be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in
Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and other such designations, which have a
high status of protection in relation to these issues.
6. The proposed outbuilding would be positioned opposite the front of the house
in quite close proximity. It would be a large outbuilding but would be single
Appeal Decision APP/W0340/D/20/3254826
2
storey. In relation to the house, I would conclude that due to its height and
overall size being substantially less than the two storey house then it would be
subservient to the main dwelling. It would be apparent as an outbuilding which
would also have a rural character through use of timber cladding for example.
7. The outbuilding would be visible from outside of the site, although would be at
least partially obscured from most views due to the boundary fence and
existing trees. It would also be set down in ground level from some of the
boundaries and surrounding landscape areas. As such it would not be a
prominent outbuilding and would be seen against the backdrop of the house.
Even when viewed from either the adjacent road or the Public Right of Way at a
closer distance, it would appear as a subservient outbuilding set within a
residential curtilage and be of a low profile single storey height. The expansive
overall plot would also remain spacious.
8. For all these reasons, the proposed outbuilding would not be visually prominent
as a new building within the countryside. It would not harm the character and
appearance of the wider rural landscape, even though it would be visible from
some viewpoints. The proposal would therefore conserve the natural beauty
and general remoteness of the AONB in this area of open downland.
9. Considering all the above, the proposal conserves the character and
appearance of the area, its wider landscape, and the North Wessex Downs Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The proposal is therefore in accordance
with policies C3 and C6 of the Housing Site Allocations DPD, policies ADPP1,
ADPP5, CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy (2006-2026),
which require development to conserve and enhance the local distinctiveness,
sense of place and setting of the AONB; be of a high quality design that
respects and enhances the character and appearance of the area; and with
extensions having regard to the landscape character of the area and its
sensitivity to change; amongst other things.
Conditions
10. Having regard to the conditions advised by the Council I have attached the
standard conditions relating to approved plans and the time restriction. I have
also included a condition relating to materials being agreed, due to the
sensitive nature of the landscape into which the development is proposed.
Conclusion
11. For the reasons set out above and having regard to all matters raised, the
appeal should be allowed subject to the conditions in the following schedule.
Steven Rennie
INSPECTOR
Appeal Decision APP/W0340/D/20/3254826
3
SCHEDULE – CONDITIONS
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years
from the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance
with the following approved plans: 1905.100B; 1905-07A; and 1905-06B.
3) Prior to their use in the development hereby permitted, details of the
external materials to be used shall be submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out
in accordance with the approved materials/details.
END OF SCHEDULE
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decision
Site visit made on 28 September 2020
by S. Rennie BSc (Hons), BA (Hons), MA, MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 26 October 2020
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/W0340/D/20/3254826
Ogdown House, North Heath, Chieveley, Berkshire RG20 8UG
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
322 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by Mr & Mrs B & S Carter for a full award of costs against West
Berkshire District Council.
• The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of an
outbuilding.
Decision
1. The application for costs is refused.
Reasons
2. Planning Practice Guidance advises that costs may be awarded where a party
has behaved unreasonably, and the unreasonable behaviour has directly
caused another party to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal
process.
3. Planning Practice Guidance states that examples of unreasonable behaviour by
Local Planning Authorities include failure to produce evidence to substantiate
each reason for refusal on appeal and vague, generalised or inaccurate
assertions about a proposal’s impact which are unsupported by any objective
analysis.
4. The applicant has included in their Statement a description of the
communication from the Council during the planning application process which
conveyed that there was some concern with the planning proposal. Indeed, if
this was the only communication then it did not include much detail as to what
the concerns were. It did, however, demonstrate that the Council had issues
with the proposal to some extent.
5. The applicant states that there was a lack of engagement from the Council as
to what their concerns were and there was not a reasonable opportunity for
amendments. Whilst this may be the case, I am not convinced that even if
there had been more in-depth discussions between applicant and Council
before determination of the planning application that this would have resulted
in amendments which could have led to an approval. There were previous
amendments and the Council still remained of the opinion that the
development would be harmful to the AONB for example. To my mind, given
the stances of both parties it seems unlikely further amendments would be able
to be agreed to avoid the subsequent appeal.
Costs Decision APP/W0340/D/20/3254826
2
6. Whilst I have not agreed with the decision made by the Council as can be seen
from the Appeal Decision, I do not regard their decision as being unreasonable.
The evidence from the Council was well-reasoned and concluded against
planning policy, although I have come to a different decision.
7. Overall, I conclude that for the reasons set out above, unreasonable behaviour
resulting in unnecessary expense in taking this proposal into an appeal process
has not been demonstrated. For this reason, and having regard to all other
matters raised, an award for costs is therefore not justified.
Steven Rennie
INSPECTOR
Expert Representation
Don't leave your appeal to chance.
Inspectors are inconsistent. We build a technical defense using precedents from our 182,000+ case archive.
No win, no fee Householder representation — you only pay if you win.