Erection of an outbuilding

📊

See the success rate & inspector analytics

Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.

Sign Up Free

Technical 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.

Get Free Review How it works →