Appeal 6002655

The appeal is dismissed.

The application form states that the construction of the appeal scheme began in May 2025 however it has not been completed. I have therefore assessed the appeal scheme based on the plans before me.

The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

I have used the description of development contained within the Council’s Decision Notice for clarity as I consider it describes the development more accurately. However, in doing this I have nonetheless had full regard in my reasoning to the description on the application form.

Located opposite a petrol station, [site address] is a detached two storey dwelling and fronts onto the A4095 which is a relatively busy road. It has off road parking and the appeal scheme would be located on this drive.

The proposed shed would feature an asymmetrical pitched roof design and would be constructed out of timber. It measures a maximum of approximately 3.175m in height.

Defining the ‘principal elevation’ of a dwelling can be a matter of planning judgement. Whilst in most cases the principal elevation would be the part of the house which directly fronts the main highway serving the house, it would also usually contain the main architectural features of the dwelling, such as main bay windows or a porch serving the main entrance. Consequently, given that the elevation facing the driveway contains the main architectural features, in my planning judgement it is this elevation that should be considered as the principal elevation of [site address] .

Nevertheless, given its location on the driveway, even if it were not to be considered a principal elevation, it is in a prominent location and can be viewed when approaching [site address] from either direction on the A4095.

I am mindful that there is a fairly low boundary wall and minimal boundary treatment. Consequently, given the scale and massing of the shed, it would be significant and visually prominent given the absence of boundary treatment and its location on the drive.

I acknowledge that there was a previous relatively dilapidated shed on the site and that the footprint of the appeal scheme is similar. However, based on the evidence before me, the appeal scheme would (along one side) be approximately 0.67m higher than the previous shed and thus materially different in my planning judgement.

Therefore, whilst I note the proposed eaves height, it remains that the overall scale and massing of the appeal scheme would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area given the relatively prominent proposed location within the streetscape.

There is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the proposed pitch of the roof is essential for renewable energy generation.

Furthermore, whilst the overall roof height would be below that which is allowed under permitted development for a dual pitched roof, this is not wholly comparable to the appeal scheme before me. This is because I have identified the principal elevation of [site address] as facing the driveway, therefore the appeal scheme would be situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation. Nevertheless, even if it was not the principal elevation, the proposed development would be sited within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse.

Regarding a condition requiring the timber to be treated or painted in a dark, visually recessive colour, this would not overcome the harm I have identified as a result of the appeal scheme’s relatively large scale and massing which would be further exacerbated by its proposed prominent position.

Based on the evidence before me, the condition of the previous shed was relatively poor. However, there is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the replacement of the shed could not be achieved by actions which would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding area.

I acknowledge that opposite the appeal site is a petrol station which has a commercial character given the busy traffic it generates including movements of oil tankers. Nevertheless, the overall character of the surrounding area, remains to my mind residential. I do not know the full circumstances of the petrol station; however, its presence does not justify a scheme that I have identified would result in unacceptable harm to the general character and appearance of the surrounding area.

The appellant refers to other developments that have been approved in the surrounding area and provides an application reference for one example1. I do not 1 Planning Application Reference: 21/03064/HHD have the full circumstances of these and therefore cannot be certain that they are wholly comparable to the appeal scheme before me. Nevertheless, each application is determined on its own merits and given the site-specific context of the appeal site, they do not lead me to a different conclusion.

There is limited substantive evidence before me regarding support for the appeal scheme by the local community as outlined by the appellant. However, considering all of the above, the appeal scheme would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area due to the prominent position proposed in conjunction with the overall scale and massing of the appeal scheme.

In conclusion, the appeal scheme would result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would therefore conflict with Policies OS2 and OS4 of the West Oxfordshire Local Plan 2031 (the LP) insofar as they seek to ensure that developments are proportionate and appropriate in scale to their context, complement the existing character of the area as well as contribute to local distinctiveness.

Policy OS3 of the LP outlines that all development proposals will be required to show consideration of the efficient and prudent use of natural resources.

Regarding the environmental benefits highlighted in the evidence before me, including the use of timber, windows to prevent heavy use of artificial lighting and the intention to install solar PV panels, given the scale of the appeal scheme the benefits associated with these would be modest.

I acknowledge the appellant’s frustration regarding the perceived lack of transparency from the Council in relation to the objection by Hanborough Parish Council. Additionally, their concerns regarding security of data and the integrity of the process due to the timing of a leaflet delivered to [site address] offering services to appeal the Council’s decision. However, these are not within the scope of this appeal, particularly given they occurred during the application process. They are instead matters between the parties.

Irrespective of whether the Officer who prepared the Council’s delegated report and decision notice was an [name], there is limited substantive evidence before me to adequately demonstrate that the Council did not objectively assess the appeal scheme on its planning merits.

The Council has not indicated concerns regarding the living conditions of neighbouring occupants including privacy and daylight/sunlight. Based on the evidence before me, I find no reason to disagree with its conclusions on this matter.

I note reference in the evidence before me to safety concerns regarding the petrol station as well as the effect of the noise generated by oil tankers upon the occupants of [site address] . However, these do not relate to the proposed development before me and therefore are not within the scope of this appeal.

Accordingly, there are no material considerations of such weight or significance to justify a decision other than in accordance with the development plan.

The proposal conflicts with the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with it. For the reasons given above the appeal should be dismissed.