Appeal 3354863

The appeal is allowed, and planning permission is granted for rear garden walls and landscaping at [site address] , Basingstoke, Hampshire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/00218/RET and the following plans submitted with it: Proposed Site Layout and Location Plan drawing no DG/PLANS/10 dated January 2024 and Proposed Site Elevations and Longitudinal Section drawing no DG/PLANS/11 dated January 2024.

The description of development includes the phrase “retrospective planning”. However, “retrospective planning” is not an act of development, therefore I have omitted these words from the description of development.

During my site visit I was able to see that the development is already in place and that it appears to accord with the plans before me. I have determined the appeal on that basis.

The main issue in this appeal is whether the development preserves or enhances the character or appearance of the Cliddesden Conservation Area (CCA).

No 1 is a substantial, modern detached house located within a residential cul-de-sac on the edge of the CCA. The CCA is characterised by its diverse historic buildings and vernacular architecture arranged along [address], [address] and [address]. Insofar as is relevant to the proposal, the significance and special interest of the CCA lies in its variety of historic buildings, including the nearby former [name] chapel which is a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA), its mature trees and hedgerow boundaries, and its views of the rising countryside behind.

The development comprises three terraces located in the rear garden of no 1. The two lower terraces are supported by brick retaining walls with the third upper terrace retained by oak sleepers. A large patio area has been provided on the first terrace, which is linked by grey stone paving slabs and steps to the lower patio next to the house. Further steps and stone paving lead up to a small upper patio on the third tier.

The Council consider that the development causes “less than substantial harm” to the CCA, albeit at the lower end of the sliding scale. However, in the context of the host property, I consider that the terracing is a contemporary response to the site’s sloping topography and is in keeping with the property’s modern design and its scale. The development uses high-quality materials, with its brickwork matching the property, and its oak sleepers matching timber use in the village and the property’s porch. Additionally, the retained grassed areas on the middle and upper terrace and the oak walling, in combination with its set down position, help to soften the appearance of the development.

Indeed, while noting the site’s location in an “Open Area of [name]” (OALS) within Supplementary Planning Guidance1 (SPG) and its identification as a “green finger” of open farmland in Appendix A2 of the Cliddesden Neighbourhood Plan 2022-2039 made July 2024 (CNP), given that the host garden is spacious and the upper parts of the garden remain grassed, the development has not diminished the qualities of the open landscape and its connection to the farmland beyond. Consequently, notwithstanding the Council’s concerns for additional built form in this location, I conclude that the development has had a neutral effect on the significance and special interest of the CCA.

With regards to the nearby former [name] chapel. Whilst it has been converted into a dwelling, it has retained its historical interest as a former chapel. However, given the separation distance between the site, and the lack of intervisibility due to the retained hedge between the site and the NHDA, the development has not caused harm.

For the above reasons, I conclude that the development has preserved the character and appearance of the site, and therefore it has not changed its contribution to the character and appearance of the CCA. Therefore, it accords with policies EM10 and EM11 of the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan (2011 to 2029) adopted May 2016 and policies H1, DD1 and DD2 of the CNP. These policies require development to be high quality, be responsive to the appearance of neighbouring buildings and to conserve or enhance heritage assets.

The Council have suggested a condition requiring compliance with plans. As the development has already taken place, this condition is not necessary.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.