Construction of a single storey timber framed garage and store including PV array to the roof, driveway and boundary treatment improvements

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 8 September 2026 by Lynne Evans BA MA MRTPI MRICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 15 September 2026 Appeal Ref: 6012452 Jordans, Cakeham Road, West Wittering PO20 8AA • 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 Leo Hammett against the decision of Chichester District Council. • The application Ref is WW/26/00355/DOM. • The development proposed is construction of a single storey timber framed garage and store including PV array to the roof, driveway and boundary treatment improvements. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Preliminary Matters 2. A new National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) was issued on 17 August 2026, which replaces the previous Framework published in December 2024 and all other iterations. I have therefore written to seek the views of the Appellant and the Council on the revised Framework as pertinent to this appeal. I have taken the further representations into account. Main Issue 3. The main issue in this appeal is the effect of the proposed development on the street scene and on the character and appearance of the West Wittering Conservation Area. Reasons 4. The appeal property is a detached dwelling on a generous corner plot on the north- east side of Cakeham Road (B2179). It has a number of Arts and Crafts design features with a mix of white painted and red brick elevations under a clay tiled roof. There are a wide range of mainly detached residential properties on both sides of Cakeham Road in the vicinity of the site. With a few exceptions, the houses, including the appeal property, are generally set back from the street frontage and together with the contribution of frontage hedges, deep grass verges and open fields in between the dwellings on the south side of Cakeham Road, there is an attractive open and verdant appearance to the street scene. The appeal property is within the West Wittering Conservation Area and is identified as a building which makes a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. Appeal Decision 6012452 2 5. The proposal is for an outbuilding comprising a double garage and store to the south of the house, in the south-eastern corner of the site. On the basis of the Council’s measurements, it would have a footprint of 10.4m by 7m and a hipped roof with a ridge height of 4.2m. It would sit on a brick plinth with an oak frame and timber cladding with a slate roof with PV array to the east and west elevations. There would also be a number of landscaping changes and improvements. 6. Section 72 (1) of The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 sets out in respect of development within Conservation Areas, special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of that area. The significance of the West Wittering Conservation Area relates to the historical development of the settlement of West Wittering. The Council’s West Wittering Conservation Area Character Appraisal & Management Proposals 2006 and updated in 2012 (Appraisal) divides the Conservation Area into four character areas including Cakeham Road, where the key characteristics include, amongst others, the open character to the south with grass verges; high walls, hedging and mature trees; use of brick, flint, clay tiles and white painted render and openness of road at southern corner with views towards the sea. 7. Although smaller in size than the main dwelling, the outbuilding would be a very sizeable building in terms of both its footprint and its height. As a result of its massing and scale as well as its siting, it would be an overly prominent and discordant addition within the street scene and would reduce the openness at this location. 8. The proposed materials for the roof of the outbuilding are indicated to be slate. Given the large extent of the proposed roof and its proximity to the main dwelling, I consider that the use of slate would appear visually discordant compared with the clay tiled roof to the main building. Although there are a few examples of slate roofs in the local area and within the Conservation Area, the main roof materials in the vicinity are clay tiles. The proposed selection of roof materials would further add to the harm to the street scene. 9. There is a tall and dense hedge along the eastern boundary, which contributes to the verdant character and appearance of the local area. There is no information before me regarding how the proposed siting and construction of the outbuilding would affect the hedge, but from my site visit, and noting the base of the former timber shed which is shown on the plans, I am not satisfied that the hedge could be retained in the vicinity of the proposed outbuilding. The removal of part of the hedge would further detract from the verdant character and appearance of the local area. I have taken account of the proposed additional planting but on the limited information before me I am not persuaded that it would soften and screen the proposed outbuilding, given the proposed size and height of the proposed outbuilding. 10. Taking all these matters together, I conclude that the proposed outbuilding would harm the street scene and the significance of the Conservation Area; it would not preserve the character or appearance of the West Wittering Conservation Area. It would conflict with Policies P1, P2, P8, P9 and P11 of the Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039 (adopted 2025) (Local Plan) and Policies DP3 and Policies HE4, HE5, HE6 and HE9 of the Framework, all of which amongst other matters seek a high quality of design which respects the local context and the significance of designated heritage assets. Appeal Decision 6012452 3 11. Although not referenced in the decision notice, both the Appellant and the Council have referenced the West Wittering Neighbourhood Plan (2023). For the reasons set out above I do not consider that the proposal would accord with Policy WW1 of the Neighbourhood Plan in respect of Design. Other Considerations 12. The owners of the neighbouring property have made reference to a covenant which protects the boundary hedge, between the two properties. Matters relating to a covenant would need to be addressed separately and my assessment has been made on the planning merits of the proposal. 13. I have taken into account that an earlier permission for a single garage in another part of the site under the Council’s Ref: 24/02039/DOM would not proceed if planning permission were granted for this current proposal. However, that proposal would be in a much less prominent part of the site and of a much smaller scale and therefore a commitment not to proceed with that earlier permission would not outweigh the harm I have concluded from the proposal before me. Planning Balance 14. Policy HE6: 1 of the Framework states that when considering the potential effect of a development proposal on the significance of a designated heritage asset, substantial weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. This is irrespective of whether any potential effect amounts to a positive effect, harm, substantial harm or total loss of its significance. Consistent with that approach, Policy HE6: 3 states that any harm to a designated heritage asset will be a matter of considerable importance and weight. 15. I have identified harm to the significance of the Conservation Area, which is a designated heritage asset. Given the scale of the proposal, I consider that the level of harm would be less than substantial. Under this circumstance, Policy HE6:4 states that the harm should be weighed against the any public benefits of the resulting from the proposal. Policy HE6:4 sets out that important public benefits can include enabling energy efficiency and low carbon heating measures to be employed. 16. No specific public benefits have been promoted and I consider that the benefits which may arise from the development would be primarily for the private benefit of the Appellant rather than for the benefit of the public at large. Although the proposal would include PV arrays on the east and west roof slopes, for which there is national and local policy support including, under Policies CC1 and CC2 of the Local Plan, there is no further information to set out the benefits arising and whether it would be possible to secure such benefits in an alternative manner that would result in less harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset. Therefore, any public benefits that there may be, are insufficient to outweigh the harm, which although less than substantial still attracts great weight. Appeal Decision 6012452 4 Conclusion 17. For the reasons given above and having regard to all other matters raised, including in representations, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed. L J Evans INSPECTOR