Appeal 6001453

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Erection of single storey outbuilding to front of dwelling, and installation of swimming pool with plant room to rear at [site address] , [address], Bradfield, Reading [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/01181/HOUSE, and the plans submitted with it:- G01 - Location Plan, C1 A - Site Plan, [name], [name] and [name] and Geo25-042 - [name].

In the banner heading above, I have deleted the word ‘retrospective’ from the description of development as this relates to the merits or purpose of the appeal case, rather than the description of development. However, at the time of my site visit, I saw that the development described in the banner heading above was complete. I also note that the application has been submitted retrospectively. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis.

The description of development includes the erection of a single storey outbuilding to the front of the dwelling. The Council has not raised any objections to this element of the development. Based on my observations on site, I have no reason to come to a different conclusion on the matter. The Council’s objection, in regard to the reason for refusal, relates to the installation of the swimming pool with the plant room to the rear. Therefore, I have determined the appeal on this basis.

The main issue is the effect of the development on the protected ancient woodland.

The contentious part of the appeal development relates to an above ground swimming pool and plant room situated to the rear of [site address] . No 1 is situated within a relatively large plot of land in the open countryside. To the rear, the land slopes relatively steeply down, with a cluster of woodland trees situated at a slightly lower land level to the swimming pool and plant room in question. The woodland trees are protected under a Woodland Tree Preservation Order1 (TPO) and are also classified as the [name]/ Gulley Ancient Woodland. The trees are a prominent feature within the site, contributing positively to the rural character and visual amenity value of the area.

A Tree Survey and Arboricultural Impact Assessment has confirmed that the swimming pool and plant room are located outside of the [name] (RPA) of all the trees present on site. No trees were required to be removed as part of the development, and the reasoning for placing the swimming pool in this location was because this was an area of flat ground, within an otherwise sloping site, with an existing concrete base from a previous structure.

My attention has been drawn to the Natural England and Forestry Commission standing advice for ancient woodlands, which states that developments should have a buffer zone of at least 15 metres from the boundary of the woodland to avoid root damage. Whilst this is acknowledged, it is a recommendation rather than a mandatory requirement and the guidance goes on to say that the size of the buffer zone will depend on the scale and type of development and the character of the area. Therefore, the fact that the development lies within a nominal ‘buffer zone’ does not, in itself, demonstrate harm. The material question is whether the completed works have caused, or are likely to cause, a material deterioration in the health, stability, or longevity of the protected trees, or a material diminution in their public amenity value.

The nature and design of the above ground swimming pool is that it is of lightweight PVC fabric construction, supported on a steel frame. It was positioned on an existing area of level ground and did not involve any excavation or foundation works. The pool is readily removable and no changes in ground levels, trenching, or sub-base compaction were undertaken to accommodate it. I also noted that the ground levels around the base of the trees themselves have not been materially altered.

Furthermore, I observed the clearly established access route located between the swimming pool & plant room, and the edge of the woodland line. This provides a clear intervening feature between the pool and the woodland, which further emphasises the lack of harm to the protected trees. The scale and nature of the development have not encroached upon RPA’s, and the trees continue to make a positive contribution to the rural character and amenity value of the area.

On the balance of the evidence before me, and from what I observed, I find no persuasive indication that the development has encroached to a degree that would have compromised the structural roots or rooting environment of the ancient woodland trees. In particular, the above‐ground pool, by virtue of its lack of foundation, level‐ground siting and removable, lightweight construction, has not required engineering operations within RPAs and presents no credible risk to root damage. It is set above existing soil levels to avoid root severance and there is no substantive evidence that the development has resulted in harm to the health, stability or longevity of these trees. 1 TPO201/21/1082

In visual terms, the protected trees remain prominent features that frame the site and soften the built form. The completed development, read alongside the retained tree cover, does not erode the rural character of the area or the contribution the trees make to the amenity value of the area.

The Council’s concern that the site would not permit sufficient space for replacement trees is predicated on losses occurring. However, I have found that the retained trees have not been harmed and continue to make a positive contribution to the area, so there is no present necessity for replacement planting to mitigate a loss that has not occurred. The absence of surplus space for larger-canopy specimens does not, in the circumstances of an intact and healthy tree resource, amount to a demonstrable adverse impact. Moreover, the appeal structures occupy a clearly defined and separate grassed area, physically disconnected from the edge of the woodland by the established access path and a post and wire fence. This long-term accessway limits any potential southward expansion of the woodland, meaning the development has no bearing on natural regeneration.

The Council also allege that the development has harmed the specialist flora of the woodland, but no substantive evidence has been provided to support this claim. While it is unclear what, if any, impacts may have occurred during construction, the appellant has confirmed that no trees were removed to accommodate the development, and the Council has offered little counterevidence to demonstrate otherwise. On the basis of the information before me, I find no compelling reason to conclude that the development has adversely affected the specialist flora of the woodland.

The principles within the National Planning Policy Framework (2024) (the Framework) are recognised, stating that planning permission should be refused if development results in the loss or deterioration of ancient woodland, ancient trees and veteran trees unless both of the following applies - there are wholly exceptional reasons and that there is a suitable compensation strategy in place. However, I am satisfied that the development would not impact the protected ancient woodland. There would be no loss or deterioration of trees. Therefore, whilst the structures are within the recommended buffer zone, the scale and type of the development has not resulted in any identifiable or evidenced harm.

Therefore, for the reasons set out above, I am satisfied that the development would not harm the protected ancient woodland. It would therefore accord with Policies SP11 and DM15 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2023–2041 (adopted 2025) and the objectives of the Framework. Taken together, these policies seek to ensure that development conserves and enhances trees, woodland, and hedgerows. Development affecting trees protected by a TPO must be robustly justified, and its impact assessed in terms of the contribution to the character and amenity of the area. In respect of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland, development that would result in their loss or deterioration should be refused unless wholly exceptional reasons exist.

A number of concerns have been raised by Bradfield Parish Council. [name] acknowledge that other permissions exist, the cumulative effect of domestic structures within a curtilage is not, in itself, determinative unless it results in demonstrable harm to character, landscape, or other material considerations. In this case, the above-ground pool and sheds are modest in scale, visually contained, and do not materially alter the domestic character of the site.

Regarding the appeal site’s location within the North Wessex Downs National Landscape, the pool is of lightweight, removable construction and positioned on existing level ground without excavation or permanent engineering works. Its visual influence is limited and read against the backdrop of existing domestic development. I therefore find no significant adverse effect on the landscape character or the statutory purposes of the National Landscape designation. Nor did the Council refuse it on this basis.

On water management, I acknowledge the absence of a formal risk assessment. However, the pool is above-ground and can be drained in a controlled manner, utilising the adjacent plant room. In terms of wildlife and environmental impact, the pool and sheds occupy an established domestic garden and do not encroach into [name]/Gulley. There is no substantive evidence before me to indicate that the presence of the development has materially harmed biodiversity.

The swimming pool is of a modest scale and located within the private garden of the appeal site. Its size and position inherently limit its use to the private enjoyment of the occupants of No 1. In these circumstances, I do not consider a condition restricting its use to private purposes, as requested by the Parish Council, to be necessary or reasonable. Similarly, given the nature and scale of the development, I find no justification for imposing a condition to restrict external lighting around the pool.

Finally, while I note discrepancies between the topography map and other plans, these do not alter my assessment nor the merits of the appeal development. The approved garage and extant extension are separate matters subject to their own permissions and controls and are not relevant to the development before me now. For the reasons above, I am satisfied that the concerns raised do not warrant withholding permission in these circumstances.

In their appeal questionnaire, the Council stated that conditions would be submitted at a later date, but nothing further was received. Nevertheless, given that the development has already occurred, and no further work to the trees are required, I have allowed the appeal on the basis of the submitted plans.

For the reasons set out above, having considered all other matters raised, I conclude that the appeal is allowed.