Appeal 6002167

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the retention of external alterations to [name] and B, and the insertion of 4 No. new windows to [name] at [site address] , Hungerford, [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/02080/FUL, and subject to the following

The development hereby permitted relating to the insertion of 4 No. new windows to [name] only shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan Barns A & B ([name]. 4757-101), Block Plan Barns A & B ([name]. 4757-102), [name] - Plans & Elevations ([name]. 4757-002), [name] ([name]. 4757- 007), [name] ([name]. 4757-008).

The appellant made an application for costs. This application for costs has been dealt with in a separate decision.

Differing to the description of development in the banner heading above, the Council's decision notice accurately describes the development as shown on the supporting plans as, "Retrospective in part application for the retention of external alterations to [name] and B, and the insertion of 4 No. new windows to [name]". I have used this description in my consideration of the appeal since it best describes the proposed development in precise and concise terms.

Part of the proposed development (relating to external alterations to [name] and B) is already in place and I shall deal with the appeal on this basis. However, ‘retrospective’ is not an act of development, and this has been reflected in the formal decision, above.

Subsequent to the Council’s decision, the West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2023 – 2041 (adopted June 2025) (Local Plan Review) was adopted. The Council have identified the policies of the Local Plan Review which supersede those referred to in the Council’s decision notice, and the appellant has had the opportunity to comment on these policies. I have taken account of the Local Plan Review in the determination of this appeal.

The main issue is whether the Council were correct to refuse the planning application on the basis of prematurity.

The appeal site is a former agricultural yard situated within the [site address] , which is located in a rural area. The yard was established in 2008 via the erection of 2 agricultural storage buildings. [name] was originally open-fronted, with enclosed sides and rear. Subsequently, the works relating to this appeal occurred, which included enclosing the front of the barn with metal cladding, and the insertion of doors, windows, and skylights.

The Council’s decision notice mentions that these physical changes facilitate the continuing presence of existing and proposed commercial uses, which (according to the Council) do not have planning permission. However, the appellant has explained that [name] was enclosed to provide secure agricultural storage, following incidents of vandalism and arson at the farm, and this has not been disputed by the Council. This constitutes an agricultural need for the works to [name]. Moreover, the works undertaken have resulted in [name] having a similar appearance to [name], which was built for agricultural use.

Therefore, the evidence does not indicate that the physical changes made to [name] relate to any particular commercial use rather than an agricultural use (such as storage of agricultural machinery, for example). In other words, it has not been demonstrated that there is an intrinsic link between the physical changes made to [name] and the alleged unauthorised uses on site.

According to the main parties, roof lights, doors, and a fire escape staircase have been added to [name]. These form part of the works relating to this appeal. Also proposed are new windows to the front elevation, serving a mezzanine floor level. Again, such features would not be unexpected on a barn in agricultural use. Furthermore, I note that subsequent to the Council’s decision, a Certificate of [name] or Development has been issued1 relating to the use of the mezzanine floor within [name] as personal storage, rather than for any commercial use. Thus, it has not been shown that the works relating to [name] are intrinsically linked to any particular commercial use on site.

The Council refused the application on the basis of prematurity, in that the facilitation of non-authorised commercial uses would potentially undermine and prejudice the future determination of retrospective application(s). However, these matters do not relate to the plan-making process, which is the focus of paragraph 50 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The Council have conceded that, although the Local Plan Review was pending adoption at the time 1 25/02621/CERTE of their decision, the proposed development would not prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process, with respect to paragraph 51 of the Framework.

The Council have referred to part g. of Policy DM42 of the Local Plan Review, which relates to the safety and operational capacity of the local road network. This appeal relates to physical works to [name] and B only, which would not generate any traffic. Hence, no conflict arises with Policy DM42.

The Council have referred to floorspace in relation to major development, with reference to Policy SP2 of the Local Plan Review, which relates to the North Wessex Downs National Landscape2 (National Landscape). As the application form makes clear, the proposed development would not involve the loss or gain of non-residential floorspace. As such, it does not relate to major development, and the proposed development would not undermine the plan-making process in this regard. Matters relating to sustainability relate to the use of the barns, rather than to the physical works which are under consideration in this appeal.

Overall, few specific details have been provided to explain how the approval of the proposed development, which relates solely to physical works which would be suitable for barns in agricultural use, would prejudice or undermine the consideration of any planning assessments relating to the commercial uses undertaken on site.

Taking all of the above into account, none of the matters raised by the Council alter my finding that the Council was not correct to refuse the planning application on the basis of prematurity. No conflict is identified with Policies SP1, SP2, SP7, DM36, and DM42 of the Local Plan Review, none of which relate to prematurity.

I have carefully considered the representations of Hungerford Town Council. As the proposed development relates to physical works only, aside from the potential for light pollution (considered below), matters relating to highway safety, traffic generation, EV charging, the times at which the site is used, and the lack of a submitted plan for the whole estate, are not relevant to the proposed development.

Due to the small sizes of the windows under consideration in this appeal and that the site is well-screened by existing mature vegetation and trees, the proposed development would not result in adverse impacts upon dark night skies. No conflict would arise with the provisions of the North Wessex Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2019-2024 in this respect.

As per paragraph 189 of the Framework, I have given great weight to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of the National Landscape. As the visual impacts of the proposed development would be confined to views within the site and immediately outside it, the proposed development would not be harmful to the wider landscape. The proposed development would therefore have a neutral effect on the landscape and in conserving it, would not conflict with the Framework in this respect. This is a neutral matter, which does not weigh in favour of the proposed development. In reaching this finding, I have had regard to s85(A1) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (as amended), which provides that, amongst other things, a relevant authority must seek to further the 2 Since 22 November 2023, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty are known as National Landscapes. purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

I have considered the need for conditions against the advice on conditions set out in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). As part of the proposed development has not been carried out, conditions are necessary, in the interests of clarity and enforceability, setting out the timescale for the commencement of the proposed development (condition 1) and the approved plans (condition 2), respectively.

Given the finding above in relation to dark night skies, a condition seeking to control times of business would not be necessary. Additionally, as the proposed development does not relate to the use of the barns, such a condition would not be relevant to the development to be permitted.

As the proposed development relates to external alterations and the insertion of new windows only, it is subject to the de minimis exemption, meaning that the biodiversity gain condition does not apply.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other relevant material considerations, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed.