Detached double garage in front garden with tiled pitched roof and timber clad elevations to match existing property
📊
See the success rate & inspector analytics
Free to view — just create an account, no payment needed.
Sign Up FreeTechnical Issues Heatmap
Policy Weight
Character & Appearance
Rural Impact
Inspector’s Reasoning
Appeal Decision
Site visit made on 7 November 2023 by Max Webb BA(Hons) MSc MRTPI
Decision by L McKay MA MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 29 February 2024
Appeal Ref: APP/W0340/D/23/3327002
Russetts, Webbs Lane, Beenham, Reading, West Berkshire RG7 5LH
• 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 John Lewington against the decision of West Berkshire
District Council.
• The application Ref 23/01051/HOUSE, dated 29 April 2023, was refused by notice dated
21 July 2023.
• The development proposed is described as “detached double garage in front garden
with tiled pitched roof and timber clad elevations to match existing property”.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Appeal Procedure
2. The site visit was undertaken by a representative of the Inspector whose
recommendation is set out below and to which the Inspector has had regard
before deciding the appeal.
Preliminary Matters
3. The Government published on 19 December 2023 a revised version of the
National Planning Policy Framework (Framework). Whilst I have had regard to
the revised national policy as a material consideration, planning decisions must
still be made in accordance with the development plan unless material
considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, the issues most relevant to
the appeal remain unaffected by the revisions to the Framework. I am
therefore satisfied that there is no requirement to seek further submissions on
the revised Framework, and that no party would be disadvantaged by such a
course of action.
4. On 22 November 2023, all designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
(AONBs) in England and Wales became “National Landscapes” (NLs). I have
therefore made reference to NLs in my recommendation and specifically
referred to the North Wessex Downs AONB as the North Wessex Downs
National Landscape (NWDNL). However, for the avoidance of doubt, the legal
designation and policy status of these areas are unchanged and I have
proceeded on this basis.
5. The appellant has submitted an amended plan with the appeal, for a smaller
building closer to the main dwelling. This would form a substantial change from
the original plan considered by the Council and interested parties. Due to when
this amendment was submitted, interested parties will not have had the chance
to comment on these changes and could therefore be prejudiced if I were to
Appeal Decision APP/W0340/D/23/3327002
2
accept the amended plan. As a result, I have considered this appeal on the
basis of the original plans, against which the Council made its decision.
Main Issue
6. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and
appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, including the
NWDNL.
Reasons for the Recommendation
7. The appeal site is located in an area of countryside, with properties on this side
of Webbs Lane situated on reasonably large plots with spacious, largely
undeveloped frontages, generally enclosed by hedges. Around Webbs Lane are
open fields, with the village of Beenham a short distance away. This forms the
character of the surrounding area and the NWDNL in the vicinity of the appeal
site. The appeal property itself is a modest chalet style bungalow with a
spacious frontage, characteristic of those in this row of dwellings. The appeal
site therefore contributes positively to the character of the area.
8. Many of the properties around the appeal site feature garages, some of which
are set forward of the dwelling, however they generally remain close to the
host properties and set well back from the front boundary.
9. The proposal seeks to add a large double garage, with a pitched roof and
materials to match the existing dwelling. However, due to its scale it would
appear out of proportion and not subservient to the host dwelling. Other large
garages in the vicinity of the appeal property are related to larger dwellings
and therefore respect the scale of their host properties, which would not be the
case here.
10. Furthermore, the garage would be positioned close to the front boundary and
take up a large area of the front garden. This would detract from the spacious
character of the appeal site, which would be detrimental to the character of the
street and wider NWDNL. The appeal proposal would also be intrusively close to
the boundary, which would exacerbate the loss of the open frontage. The
proposal would be significantly taller than the existing hedges, so they would
provide limited screening, and their presence would not reduce the harm to an
acceptable level.
11. The siting of the proposed garage would also contrast with other properties in
the area, including The Hollies, Four Spires, Valley View and The Ridge House,
which have garages projecting forwards but that are either positioned close to
or attached to the host dwellings. These other examples therefore respect the
spacious frontages and character of the area, unlike the appeal proposal.
12. The appellant has suggested they are planning to construct an extension to the
side of the dwelling so would be unable to position a garage to the side or rear.
It is unclear whether planning permission has been granted for an extension,
and I have very limited details of its proposed size and appearance. Therefore,
it has not been demonstrated that the appeal dwelling would be extended to a
size where the proposed garage would appear proportionate. Furthermore,
even if the house were extended, this would not necessarily justify the
construction of a large garage close to the front boundary.
Appeal Decision APP/W0340/D/23/3327002
3
13. Overall, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance
of the host dwelling and the surrounding area, including the NWDNL in the
vicinity of the appeal site. It would therefore conflict with Policy C6 of the West
Berkshire Housing Site Allocations Development Plan Document (2006-2026)
(adopted May 2017), which permits extensions and alterations providing that
the scale is subservient and in character with the host dwelling and not have an
adverse effect on the setting and space occupied within a plot. It would also
not comply with Policies CS14 and CS19 of the West Berkshire Core Strategy
(2006-2026) Development Plan Document (adopted July 2012), which outline
how development must demonstrate high quality design which respects and
enhances the character and appearance of the area, including by ensuring it is
appropriate in terms of location and scale in the context of the existing
settlement form, pattern and character.
14. The proposal would also go against the aims of the West Berkshire House
Extensions Supplementary Planning Guidance (adopted July 2004), which
outlines how garages can be dominant and unsympathetic, and that garages
projecting forward should not dominate. It would likewise be contrary to the
Beenham Village Design Statement (adopted July 2003), which highlights that
the visual impact of the location and design of garages on their surroundings
and wider street scene should be considered. It would further conflict with the
policies of the Framework which require high quality design that takes
opportunities to improve the quality of an area.
Conclusion and Recommendation
15. The proposal would conflict with the Local Plan and national policy, and there
are no material considerations that justify granting planning permission in
conflict with the development plan. For the reasons given above and having
had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be
dismissed.
Max Webb
APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER
Inspector’s Decision
16. I have considered all the submitted evidence and the Appeal Planning Officer’s
report and agree with the reasoning set out above. The proposal conflicts with
the development plan and there are no material considerations which outweigh
the harm to the character and appearance of the area. On that basis the appeal
is dismissed.
L McKay
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.