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 Free

Technical 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.

Get Free Review How it works →