Erection of garage with store and home office above; creation of associated driveway

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 13 April 2021 by Adrian Hunter BA(Hons) BTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18th May 2021 Appeal Ref: APP/W0340/D/20/3265420 Brookfield House, Mans Hill, Burghfield Common, Reading RG7 3BD • 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 J Elvery against the decision of West Berkshire Council. • The application Ref 20/02278/HOUSE, dated 1 October 2020, was refused by notice dated 30 November 2020. • The development proposed is erection of garage with store and home office above; creation of associated driveway. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. I note that the adjoining road, whilst it is referred to as Mans Hill on both the application forms and the Council’s Decision Notice, it is also referred to as Man’s Hill Road on the plans. For the avoidance of doubt and for reasons of consistency, I have referred to it as Mans Hill. Main Issues 3. The main issues in this appeal are; • The effect of the proposal upon the character and appearance of the area; and • The effect of the proposal upon Brookfield House, as a non-designated Heritage Asset. Reasons Character and appearance 4. The appeal site comprises a large, detached property, set within a substantial open plot. The host building is positioned close to the boundary of the site and, due to its size, scale and the topography of the appeal site, is prominent within local views. The proposed outbuilding would be located along the boundary of the appeal site with Mans Hill. Whilst there are a number of nearby properties, the character of the surrounding area is principally rural. 5. The development would comprise the erection of a detached outbuilding, with five parking bays on the ground floor. The roof space of the building would be used to provide storage and a home office. Appeal Decision APP/W0340/D/20/3265420 2 6. Whilst the proposed garage block would be lower in height than the host dwelling, the appeal proposal would result in a building of considerable height, bulk, scale and mass. It would extend above surrounding boundary treatment and due to its size, it would extend the height and spread of built development along the boundary of the site, which would be clearly visible from Mans Hill. As a result, and given the overall prominence of the appeal site, the proposed building would be a significant feature within the countryside, which despite the sloping nature of the site, would be clearly visible within local views. As a consequence, it would represent an incongruous form of development that would fail to positively respond to its site and surroundings and would therefore harm the rural character and appearance of the area. 7. My attention has been drawn by the appellant to other developments in close proximity to the road, in particular Brookfield Cottage. Whilst this building is located on the boundary of the appeal site, it is well related to Brookfield House and, when seen from Mans Hill, its presence is relatively minor. The proposed new building, in contrast, would extend the amount, size and scale of development along the boundary of the appeal site, further into the open countryside and would represent a significant form of development, which would harm the character of the area. 8. For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the area, and, in this respect, would be contrary to Policies CS14 and ADPP6 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy, Policy C6 of the Housing Allocations Development Plan Document and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). These policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure that additions are of a scale to be subservient to the original dwelling, are designed to be in character with the existing dwelling, respect local rural character and its setting within the wider landscape. Non designated heritage asset 9. Brookfield House, is identified in the West Berkshire Historic Environment Record. As such it is identified as a non-designated heritage asset. Its significance is derived principally from its age, its unique design and appearance, and its prominent location within the countryside. 10. The proposed outbuilding would be of a considerable size and scale, in particular its height, with the roof level of the proposed building being comparable to the second floor of Brookfield House. As a result, and despite the overall design and appearance of the proposed building being in keeping with the features of Brookfield House, the proposed outbuilding would appear as a prominent building, clearly visible in local views. As such, it would detract from the overall legibility of Brookfield House and, due to its size, would harm the significance of the building as a non-designated heritage asset. 11. For the above reasons, I therefore conclude that the proposed development would harm the significance of the building as a non-designated heritage asset and, in this respect, would be contrary to Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy, Policy C6 of the Housing Allocations Development Plan Document and Paragraph 197 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). These policies, amongst other things, seek to ensure that extensions to buildings have no adverse impact on the historic interest of the building. Appeal Decision APP/W0340/D/20/3265420 3 Other Matters 12. My attention has been drawn by the appellant to a recent grant of planning permission for the erection of a three bay garage on the appeal site, along with a recent Certificate of Lawful Development for the erection of a 5 bay garage, of a similar footprint to the appeal site, but with a reduced height. 13. Whilst these approvals provide a fallback position and establish the principle of erecting a garage in the location as proposed by the appeal application, in my view, neither of the two alternative schemes would be as substantial as the proposal now before me. Therefore, I see no reason to make a decision, other than in accordance with the development plan. Conclusion 14. For the above reasons, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. Adrian Hunter INSPECTOR