Triple garage and shed (retrospective)
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Character & Appearance
Sustainability
Rural Impact
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 22 August 2022
by Les Greenwood MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 21 September 2022
Appeal Ref: APP/C1760/D/22/3298655
Windy Ridge, Wallop Road, Grateley, Hampshire SP11 7EB
• 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 Graham Inchley against the decision of Test Valley Borough
Council.
• The application Ref 22/00330/FULLN, dated 8 February 2022, was refused by notice
dated 11 April 2022.
• The development proposed is a triple garage and shed (retrospective).
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Main issue
2. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of
this part of Wallop Road.
Reasons
3. Windy Ridge is a detached bungalow sitting well back from the street on rising
ground, within a line of similar properties on the rural fringe of the village of
Grateley. It has an extensive front garden in which there are several
outbuildings, 2 of which are the subject of the (retrospective) appeal
application. The Council raises no objection to the small shed. Its objection is to
the timber triple garage. The garage and shed were both in place at the time of
my site visit.
4. The garage is a sizeable structure, set well up above street level and forward of
Windy Ridge. Its long back wall is prominent in views from Wallop Road, as
seen from the north-west, across the more open front gardens of neighbouring
properties where it intrudes on the spacious and verdant character of this part
of the row. It sits in the foreground of views of Windy Ridge and the bungalows
further to the south-east as a dominant visual feature. Although those
bungalows to the south-east are set forward of Windy Ridge, and there is a
much smaller and lower garage in the front garden next door, this does not
adequately justify the siting of such a sizeable outbuilding in an elevated
position forward of the row of bungalows.
Appeal Decision APP/C1760/D/22/3298655
2
5. Views of the garage from the south-eastern approach and opposite the site are
screened by the property’s frontage evergreen hedging. The garage could,
however, become much more visible in future if that evergreen hedging were
ever to be removed. I note that this hedging could be replaced if required and
new planting could be introduced in the gap between the triple garage and the
side boundary. The walls of the garage could be stained a dark colour as
suggested by the appellant. None of these actions would, however, sufficiently
mitigate what I consider to be poorly sited development that intrudes onto the
more open character of these frontages.
6. The Council is also concerned about the use of timber here, but that material is
used for other outbuildings nearby and I find no objection in this respect.
Nevertheless, I conclude that the proposed garage causes unacceptable harm
to the spacious, rural character and appearance of this part of Wallop Road. It
therefore conflicts with the aims of Policies E1 and E2 of the Test Valley
Borough Revised Local Plan, to ensure development is of high quality in terms
of design and local distinctiveness and does not have a detrimental impact on
the landscape character of the area.
7. The appellant intends to site solar panels on the garage, which would make a
small but valuable contribution towards addressing climate change. I
understand that there have been thefts at the property and the garage
provides secure storage. I also understand that the garage has been sited to
provide easy access for elderly relatives living at Windy Ridge. I note that the
Parish Council and neighbours have not objected to the application. These
points are all significant, but are not sufficient to override my clear objections
in respect of the main issue.
8. For the reasons set out above, and having regard to all other matters raised, I
conclude that the appeal should not succeed.
Les Greenwood
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.