Appeal 6001512

The appeal is dismissed.

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.

The planning application was not accompanied by a Statement of Heritage Significance, which is a planning policy requirement and formed the Council’s second reason for refusing the planning application. The appellant has submitted a Heritage Statement with the appeal, along with an additional landscape plan. However, the appeal has been submitted under the [name] and under this appeal procedure new evidence cannot be accepted by the inspector. On this basis, the Statement of Heritage Significance and the new landscape plan have not been taken into account in this decision.

The shed is in place and the appeal has been considered on this basis.

The main issues in the appeal are: • The effect of the proposed development on the character or appearance of the Aldworth Conservation Area and on the appeal property; and • The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the North Wessex Downs National Landscape (the National Landscape).

The appeal property is located within the Aldworth Conservation Area (CA). I have therefore had regard to Section 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (the Act) which places a duty upon the decision-maker, in the exercise of planning functions, to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. The National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) further advises that when considering the impact of a development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation.

The CA has a rural village feel, with scattered traditional properties interspersed with agricultural land. The appeal dwelling occupies a prominent location on sloping land, with a fairly open frontage. The appeal property, whilst not listed or locally listed, is a historic dwelling and the Council consider it to be a non-designated heritage asset. It has been extended in more recent years but still contributes positively to the character of the CA due to its traditional design and materials.

The shed is positioned close to the front of the appeal dwelling adjacent to the boundary hedge. It is visible over the hedge when approaching the property from the B4009 and the unnamed road leading from [name]. The large shed has been constructed using timber and has a shallow pitched felt roof. I acknowledge that the use of timber as a building materials is a characteristic of some of the dwellings and outbuildings in the village and this in itself is not harmful. However, the orange colour of the timber used for the shed appears stark and does not blend with the appearance of the appeal dwelling, which features painted brick and black stained timber cladding. Whilst subservient to the dwelling and clearly a domestic outbuilding, the shallow pitch of the roof and width of the shed gives it a large, squat appearance. The positioning between the front of the property and the boundary hedge appears cramped and the design and materials detract from the appeal dwelling resulting in a shed that appears out of keeping with the context and character of the area.

It is noted that the appeal shed replaces a previous shed in a broadly similar location. [name] don’t have all the details of the previous shed or it’s planning status, it appears from a photograph provided by the appellant that it was smaller and had a different style and appearance to the appeal shed. [name] acknowledge that the majority of the garden at the appeal property is at the front and the new shed is in a similar location as the shed it replaced, this is not sufficient justification for the position of the shed given its size and appearance.

I note the Council’s Conservation Officer suggested some amendments to the shed to improve its appearance and that the appellant has offered to stain the timber of the shed black to match the side extensions on the appeal dwelling. I agree that, over time and the benefit of weathering this would soften the appearance of the shed and overcome the stark contrast between the orange wood and the materials used on the appeal property. Landscape planting has also been identified to better screen the shed from view. However, staining the wood and landscape screening would not overcome the harm I have identified in relation to the positioning, scale and design of the shed.

The appellant has drawn my attention to examples of other timber outbuildings at the neighbouring property, [address]. These outbuildings are on higher ground and are prominent and visible from the road, but unlike the appeal property the sheds are positioned in a larger garden setting to the side of the dwelling. The materials and style of the sheds at [address] are more traditional and in keeping with the agricultural rural character. [name] agree with the appellant that to some extent the silver colour of the timber could be due to weathering, the original materials are likely to be different and the appeal shed may not weather in the same manner. These examples are therefore not directly comparable to the appeal shed.

For these reasons, the shed has a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the appeal property and neither preserves nor enhances the character or appearance of the CA in conflict with Section 72 of the Act. The development is contrary to the Framework and a number of policies in the [site address] Local Plan Review 2023-2041 (June 2025) (the ‘Local Plan’) including Policy SP9 which seeks, amongst other things to ensure development conserves or enhances the historic environment, Policy DM9 which seeks to preserve and enhance conservation areas and DM11 and DM28 which seek to ensure the historic interest of buildings are not harmed.

The harm to the significance of the CA would be less than substantial, and at the lower end of the spectrum given the small scale of the development relative to the scale of the CA as a whole. Nonetheless, the Framework requires that great weight should be given to the conservation of designated heritage assets. Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that such harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal. The benefits of the shed in providing storage is a private benefit to the appellant and whilst the appellant states it is used for storing bikes which are a sustainable transport option, there is no evidence to suggest that bikes could not be stored elsewhere on the property. On this basis, no public benefits which outweigh the less than substantial harm to the CA.

The statutory purpose of National Landscapes is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the area. Section 245 of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2023 requires relevant authorities ‘seek to further’ the statutory purposes of [name], including National Landscapes. Similarly, paragraph 189 of the Framework requires great weight be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes, which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. Local Plan Policy SP2 and Policy DM28, have the same aim and seek to ensure that development within the National Landscape conserves or enhances the special qualities of the landscape.

The key characteristics of the landscape include the quality of the areas chalk landscape which ranges from remote open downland, dramatic skyline escarpments, contrasting wooded downland, and the small scale intimate settled river valleys. I have found that the size, positioning and materials used in the shed give the appearance of a cramped development which detracts from the appeal dwelling and is not in keeping with the context or character of the area.

Consequently, the development does not preserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Landscape and conflicts with Policy SP2 and DM28 and the Framework.

The development conflicts with the development plan as a whole and there are no other considerations, including the provisions of the Framework, which outweigh this finding.

For the reasons given above and having had regard to all other matters raised, I recommend that the appeal should be dismissed.

I have considered all the submitted evidence and my representative’s report and on that basis the appeal is dismissed.