Taking down of two existing dilapidated garage buildings and erection of two new steel framed garage buildings
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Residential Amenity
Ecology & Biodiversity
Rural Impact
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 6 May 2025
by C Coles MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 09 JULY 2025
Appeal Ref: APP/W0340/D/25/3362244
The Pines, Unnamed Road from B4000 to Nalder Hill, Wickham Heath, Newbury,
West Berkshire RG20 8PE
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
• The appeal is made by Mr Barnaby Newton against the decision of West Berkshire District Council.
• The application Ref is 24/00399/HOUSE.
• The development proposed is described as ‘Taking down of two existing dilapidated garage buildings
and erection of two new steel framed garage buildings’.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for taking down of two
existing dilapidated garage buildings and erection of two new steel framed garage
buildings at The Pines, Unnamed Road from B4000 to Nalder Hill, Wickham
Heath, Newbury, West Berkshire RG20 8PE in accordance with the terms of the
application Ref 24/00399/HOUSE, subject to the following conditions:
1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from
the date of this decision.
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with
drawing nos 01, 02-A.
3) The outbuildings hereby permitted shall not be occupied at any time other
than for purposes ancillary and/or incidental to the residential use of the
dwelling known as The Pines.
4) All the ecological enhancement recommendations in the Preliminary Roost
Assessment (November 2024, John Wenman Ecological Consultancy LLP)
shall be implemented in full prior to first use. The following enhancements
should be evidenced by means of photographs of the features in-situ
submitted to the local planning authority within 3 months of installation.
1 x Bat box included in the new building or installed on a suitable tree on site.
2 x Bird nest box installed on a suitable tree on site or affixed to the new
building.
Application for Costs
2. An application for costs was made by the appellant against the Local Planning
Authority. This application is the subject of a separate decision.
Appeal Decision APP/W0340/D/25/3362244
2
Main Issue
3. The effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of the occupiers of
the host dwelling and the adjacent dwelling 140 Wickham Heath (No 140) with
specific regard to outlook.
Reasons
4. The Pines comprises a residential property with two substantial outbuildings and
hardstanding in the rear garden. The outbuildings are clad with timber boarded
walls and black corrugated sheet roofs. The smaller outbuilding effectively
straddles the side garden boundary aside the neighbouring property No.140. The
larger one runs parallel to and above the dwelling at The Pines.
5. No 140 has no windows with a direct view of the proposed outbuilding which would
form part of the side boundary between No 140 and The Pines with an access
path separating the two. The main amenity space for No 140 is either to the front
or rear of the property and the space to the side is only used for access. The lack
of windows from No 140 facing onto the proposed outbuilding, its appearance, bulk
and mass being similar to the existing and the mature screening within the garden
of No 140 would prevent the proposal appearing overbearing or having a
detrimental impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of No 140.
6. The other proposed replacement outbuilding would have higher eaves than the
existing, but the separation distance between the host dwelling and the new
outbuilding would ensure the proposal would not appear overbearing to the
occupiers of the house.
7. In conclusion, the proposed development would have an acceptable effect on the
living conditions of the occupiers of the host dwelling and the neighbouring
property No 140 with specific regard to outlook. The proposal would not conflict
with the National Planning Policy Framework or Policy CS14 of the West Berkshire
Core Strategy 2006-2026 insofar as it seeks to make a positive contribution to the
quality of life of residents in West Berkshire.
Other Matters
8. The appeal site is in the North Wessex Downs National Landscape. The Levelling-
up and Regeneration Act 2023 requires relevant authorities to ‘seek to further’ the
statutory purposes of Protected Landscapes which are to conserve and enhance
the natural beauty of the National Landscape. Due to the design and materials of
the proposal being consistent with a rural location and the siting of the outbuildings
behind the host dwelling, away from the road and public view, the proposal would
align with the statutory purposes.
Conditions
9. In the interest of certainty, conditions relating to time limits and plans are
necessary to be imposed. To control the use of the outbuildings in the countryside
location conditions relating to ancillary and/or incidental use need to be imposed. A
condition relating to ecological enhancements is necessary to ensure the
requested enhancements are made on the site in the interests of ecology. Given
that the site is so well hidden and the walling materials are annotated on the plans,
it is not necessary to impose a condition in relation to the finished materials of the
buildings.
Appeal Decision APP/W0340/D/25/3362244
3
Conclusion
10. For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.
C Coles
INSPECTOR
£
Costs decision section
Costs Decision
Site visit made on 6 May 2025
by C Coles MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 09 JULY 2025
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/W0340/D/25/3362244
The Pines, Unnamed Road from B4000 to Nalder Hill, Wickham Heath, Newbury,
West Berkshire RG20 8PE
• 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 Barnaby Newton for a full award of costs against West Berkshire
District Council.
• The appeal was against the refusal of planning permission for taking down of two existing dilapidated
garage buildings and erection of two new steel framed garage buildings.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
Reasons
2. Parties in planning appeals normally meet their own expenses. However, the
Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) advises that costs may be awarded against a
party who has behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for
costs to incur unnecessary or wasted expense in the appeal process.
3. Unreasonable behaviour on the part of a local planning authority (LPA) may include
preventing or delaying development which should be clearly permitted, having
regard to its accordance with the development plan, national policy and any other
material considerations, acting contrary to, or not following well-established case
law, or not determining similar cases in a consistent manner.
4. The applicant contends that the LPA should have granted the planning application
as the applicants Statement of Case demonstrates that the proposal would not
have an unacceptable impact on the living conditions of the occupants of 140
Wickham Heath and The Pines.
5. The applicant also notes that two case officers intended to recommend approval of
the scheme, but the determining officer took a different view and this was based on
a desktop assessment. The applicant suggests that the LPA’s reason for refusal
includes vague and inaccurate policy references and therefore contends the LPA
has acted unreasonably by delaying acceptable development.
6. Correspondence between the case officer and the applicant during the
consideration of the application was provided without prejudice to the final decision
of the LPA. Section 6.3 of the case officers delegated report provides an adequate
analysis of the proposal and Policy CS14 and the National Planning Policy
Framework (the Framework) are correctly applied.
Costs Decision APP/W0340/D/25/3362244
2
7. The issue at hand is a matter of planning judgement, and the LPA has set out clear
reasoning in refusing the application. While I have ultimately not agreed with that
conclusion, the LPA did not therefore act unreasonably in refusing permission.
Conclusion
8. I therefore find that unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted
expense, as defined in the PPG, has not been demonstrated. Accordingly, the
application for costs is refused.
C Coles
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.