Erection of a double garage

https://www.gov.uk/planning -inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 28 October 2025 by E Worley BA (Hons) Dip EP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 November 2025 Appeal Ref: 6000557 14 Wallingford Road, Goring RG8 0AH • 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 and Mrs K Rughani against the decision of South Oxfordshire District Council. • The application Ref is P25/S1768/HH. • The development proposed is the erection of a double garage. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a double garage at 14 Wallingford Road, Goring RG8 0AH, in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref P25/S1768/HH and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan dwg. no. 001, Proposed Site Plan dwg no. PG-PS Rev A, Proposed Garage Left Elevation dwg. no. PG-E1 Rev A, Proposed Garage Street Elevation dwg. no. PG-E2 Rev A, Proposed Garage Right Elevation dwg. no. PG-E3 Rev A, Proposed Garage Front Elevation dwg. no PG-E4 Rev A, Proposed Garage Rear Elevation dwg. no. PG-E5 Rev A and Proposed Garage Ground Floor Plan dwg. no. PR-PG. 3) The external surfaces of the garage hereby permitted shall be constructed in the materials shown on the approved plans and retained as such thereafter in perpetuity. 4) Prior to the commencement of the development, including site clearance and preparatory work, a full and detailed Arboricultural Method Statement, compliant with BS:5837 (2012), providing comprehensive details of construction works in relation to the trees that have the potential to be affected by the development, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter take place in accordance with the approved details. Main Issue 2. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Appeal Decision 6000557 https://www.gov.uk/planning -inspectorate 2 Reasons 3. The appeal site comprises a detached house located in a residential area. While the dwellings along this part of Wallingford Road vary in terms of design, they are set back on their plots a similar distance from the highway, with parking areas and gardens to the front. The front boundaries to the dwellings include fences, hedges and mature trees, which creates a strong sense of enclosure. 4. The proposed garage would be visually subservient to the host dwelling, having regard to its height and scale and would respect its design and character. Although it would be positioned forward of the front elevation of the dwelling, the height and overall size of the garage, combined with the presence of the roadside hedge, and nearby mature trees and vegetation, mean that views towards the garage from the road would be limited, such that only the upmost part of the roof of the building would be visible from the road. In this context, the proposed garage would not appear as an unduly conspicuous feature in the street scene. 5. I acknowledge the Council’s concern that the boundary hedge is not permanent and may change over time, which would increase the visual prominence of the proposed garage. However, the appellants indicate that it is their intention to retain the hedge, which offers benefits in terms of mitigating the effects of the road and railway to the front of the property. Furthermore, given the area is characterised by similar boundary treatment, such features are highly likely to remain in a similar form for aesthetic reasons, privacy and noise, as well as consistency with local character. Consequently, the proposal would not diminish the existing sense of enclosure along this part of the street frontage. As such, the proposal would not conflict with the advice in the South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse Joint Design Guide, adopted June 2022. 6. The site lies in the Chilterns National Landscape (NL), an area designated for its landscape and scenic beauty. The Council is of the view that, given the site context, the proposal would conserve and enhance the special qualities of the NL. Given my observations on site and having regard to the scale of the proposed development and its close relationship with the surrounding built form, I have no reason to disagree. 7. For the foregoing reasons the proposed garage would not harm the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, it would not conflict with the aims of Policies DES1 and DES2 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011-2035, adopted December 2020, which seek high quality design that respects the character of the local area and Policy 16 of the Goring Neighbourhood Plan, made July 2019, which, among other things, requires new development to respect and maintain the character of the village and the surrounding rural AONB and respond positively to scale, mass, density and design of the immediate area and the village context. Other Matters 8. The garage would be a short distance from 2 large, Cedar trees, whose age and stature contribute positively to the verdant character and appearance of the area. While the Council’s Forestry Officer has no objection to the proposal in relation to the effect of the development on the trees, having regard to the submitted Arboricultural Impact Assessment, further information is necessary to ensure appropriate measures are in place to protect the trees during construction works. This could be secured through the imposition of a planning condition to agree a Appeal Decision 6000557 https://www.gov.uk/planning -inspectorate 3 detailed Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS). Based on the evidence before me, I am not drawn to reach a different conclusion. Conditions 9. In addition to the standard timescale condition, I have imposed a condition specifying the relevant plans to provide certainty. A condition to secure details of external materials, is necessary to ensure a satisfactory appearance to the development. 10. For the reasons set out above a condition is necessary to agree an AMS. The Council’s suggested condition includes a detailed list of information requirements. I have omitted this so that the parties can agree the precise requirements based upon relevant guidance and site circumstances at the time that the details are agreed. This is a pre-commencement condition so that measures are in place prior to the commencement of any work on site. Conclusion 11. The proposed development is consistent with the policies of the development plan as a whole and there are no material considerations that indicate a decision should be made otherwise. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed. E Worley INSPECTOR