Construction of a timber framed open front garage and store. Floor Plan is 5m x 5m with a flat roof which will extend approximately 30-60cm beyond this. Front of the construction with be of maximum height to the top of the roof 2.5m falling down to 2.4 at the rear. To the front R/H side will be an opening of approximately 2.4 with a central dividing wall for a vehicle to park. To the L/H side an opening of approx 1.8 which will have either an opening barn door style or roller shutter. To the L\H flank will be a pedestrian door approx half way down. To the left of the

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 3 August 2026 by A Chan Markovitz BA (Hons) Decision by Tamsin Law BSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 25 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012004 14 The Orchard, Flackwell Heath, Buckinghamshire HP10 9PR • 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 Nic Rand against the decision of Buckinghamshire Council. • The application Ref is PL/26/02423/FA. • The development proposed is “Construction of a timber framed open front garage and store. Floor Plan is 5m x 5m with a flat roof which will extend approximately 30-60cm beyond this. Front of the construction with be of maximum height to the top of the roof 2.5m falling down to 2.4 at the rear. To the front R/H side will be an opening of approximately 2.4 with a central dividing wall for a vehicle to park. To the L/H side an opening of approx 1.8 which will have either an opening barn door style or roller shutter. To the L\H flank will be a pedestrian door approx half way down. To the left of the construction will be a fence set back from the front elevation with a gate to keep bins and log store. Roof will be flat roof with edm rubber finished with black soffit and fascia boards and hopefully a sedum/living roof. Walls will be clad with timber cedar battens or equivalent.” 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 Matter 3. On my site visit I observed that development had begun construction but it was not complete. I have therefore considered the appeal on the basis of the plans before me, rather than what has been built. 4. A revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in August 2026. In this instance, the issues most relevant to the appeal are 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 this. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. Appeal Decision 6012004 2 Reasons for the Recommendation 6. The surrounding area is characterised by two-storey detached dwellings with hipped tiled roofs, red brick elevations and attached side garages. Owing to the curved alignment of The Orchard and adjacent cul-de-sacs, some dwellings and garages are positioned forward of others. Nevertheless, most properties are set well back from the highway behind deep, undeveloped front gardens and driveways, which are either open or enclosed by low hedges and vegetation. Collectively, these features contribute to the area's verdant character and create an open, spacious streetscape. 7. The host dwelling is typical of development in the surrounding area, with an attached right side garage flush with its principal elevation. It occupies a corner plot with a front garden extending across the full width of the dwelling and beyond the side garage. The majority of the front garden is enclosed by low hedges, while its right-hand boundary is defined by taller hedges and vegetation. 8. The proposal’s prominent siting forward of the host dwelling’s principal elevation, together with its height extending significantly above the low boundary hedges, would result in a disproportionate and visually intrusive addition. It would draw attention to itself as an incongruous feature within the street scene. Due its scale and siting, the proposed development would detract from the appearance of both the host dwelling and the surrounding area and would erode the area's open and spacious character. 9. From the right, the proposed development would be screened from public visibility by the tall vegetation along that boundary. From the left, the proposed development would be partially screened by a willow tree within the front garden. A condition has been suggested to retain and maintain this vegetation. Whilst this would reduce the proposal’s prominence in some views, its excessive scale and conspicuous siting would mean that the partial screening provided by the tree would not sufficiently mitigate its visual impact. Consequently, even with the retention of the vegetation, the proposal would still dominate the street scene and erode the area’s open and spacious character. 10. For these reasons, the proposed development would harm the character and appearance of the host dwelling and the surrounding area. The adverse effects identified under the main issue substantially outweigh any benefits derived from the proposed development. It would conflict with Policies DM35 and DM36 of the Wycombe District Local Plan (2019), and the guidance contained within the Wycombe District Council Householder Planning and Design Guidance Supplementary Planning Document (2020). Together these seek to ensure that development respects its surroundings, particularly in terms of style and form, and does not result in unacceptable harm to the character and distinctiveness of the built environment. Conclusion and Recommendation 11. For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed. A Chan Markovitz APPEAL PLANNING OFFICER Appeal Decision 6012004 3 Inspector’s Decision 12. I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed. Tamsin Law INSPECTOR