Appeal 6004050

The appeal is dismissed.

The appeal is in outline with matters of access, layout and scale to be considered.

The main issues are: i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area, including the North Wessex Downs National Landscape; and ii) whether the appeal site is a suitable location for residential development having regard to the adopted local development strategy.

The appeal site is an open parcel of undeveloped land that sits amongst a cluster of residential built form within the rural village of Frilsham. Majority of the site’s southern boundary borders onto a sizeable, undulating field. Meanwhile, the site is open onto a public right of way that runs alongside its northern boundary.

Dwellings in the surrounding area vary in precise scale and appearance but mostly consist of detached or semi-detached properties set within spacious plots. [address], dwellings are typically laid out in a linear arrangement, on broadly consistent building lines, facing onto the private road, albeit there are examples of dwellings set in ‘backland’ or ‘tandem’ arrangements along the street.

Wider neighbouring dwellings, located further beyond the appeal site and accessed via another street, are laid out in a more sporadic manner, whilst also being set within more generous plots, providing a more spacious, informal and rural character.

The appeal site, along with the whole of Frilsham and much of the surrounding area, is located within the North Wessex Downs National Landscape. The West Berkshire Landscape Character Assessment (adopted 2019) identifies the site as lying within landscape character area (LCA) FC5: [name].

Key characteristics of the LCA are its varied topography, diverse landcover dominated by woodland but interspersed with a mixture of fragmented open arable farmland and pastoral fields, small-scale settlement pattern with traditional vernacular villages, as well as its rural and tranquil landscape.

Whilst adjoining residential development encloses much of the appeal site and reduces its sensitivity, it remains that the site has an open quality whilst adjoining and offering views across to wider rolling open fields and woodland.

Whilst adjoining residential development encloses much of the appeal site and reduces its sensitivity, it retains an open quality and still provides visual links to the wider surrounding rolling fields and woodland. It also contributes to the area’s spacious, verdant quality and reinforces the village’s tranquil rural setting. As such, whilst a small plot of land it still displays or contributes to some key features of the LCA. Overall, I therefore find the appeal site to make a modest but positive contribution to local character, including the National Landscape.

Vehicular access to the plot would be provided from [address], with the proposed dwelling relating most closely to properties along this private road. Owing to the narrow plot entrance and the adjacent public footpath, the dwelling would not front the lane. Instead, it would sit behind an existing dwelling on the street and behind the prevailing building line, whilst the dwelling would face onto the footpath near its boundary.

Some backland/tandem development exists along [address], such that the principle is not entirely out of character. Nevertheless, the proposal would diverge from the prevailing linear form. Indeed, its position within the plot, orientation, narrow access, proximity to the public right of way, and backland siting would combine to create a rather contrived layout that is out of keeping with its surroundings. The proposal would also erode the open rural edge of this part of the settlement.

Close range views of the proposal would be available from the adjacent footpath, whereby its poor relationship to the existing built form would be apparent. Although landscaping is reserved for future consideration, I do not consider this would appropriately mitigate the above identified harm. In any event, landscaping should not be relied upon to conceal unacceptable development, particularly given the uncertainty of its long-term retention.

While the effects would be highly localised, the proposal would nonetheless harm the character and appearance of the area, including the North Wessex Downs National Landscape. The scheme therefore conflicts with Policies SP2, SP7, SP8 and DM1 of the West Berkshire Local Plan Review 2023–2041 (adopted 2025), which seek to secure high-quality design that reflects local character and conserves and enhances the landscape, including the special qualities of the North Wessex Downs National Landscape.

Despite being situated amongst other dwellings, within Frilsham, the appeal site is located outside any defined settlement boundary and therefore is in the open countryside for planning policy purposes as identified under the Local Plan.

Local Plan Policies SP1 and SP3 set out the spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy respectively. The strategy seeks to direct development to less environmentally sensitive locations, prioritise previously developed land, and restrict development in the countryside by focusing growth within defined settlement boundaries.

Local Plan Policy DM1 exceptionally allows for new residential development in the countryside that is appropriately designed and located, subject to certain criteria. Of pertinence to this appeal is exception i) that allows for limited residential infill in settlements in the countryside with no defined settlement boundary, whereby it conforms with each of several specified design restrictions.

For reasons outlined above, the proposal would cause harm to the character and appearance of the area, such that I do not consider it to be appropriately designed or located. Additionally, the proposed dwelling would not be commensurate with the character of other dwellings within the otherwise built-up frontage. As such, the proposal would not benefit from the exception for limited residential infill established under Local Plan Policy DM1.

The appeal site is therefore not a suitable location for residential development having regard to the adopted local development strategy. It also conflicts with Local Plan Policies SP1, SP3 and DM1.

The proposal would provide socio-economic benefits associated with the delivery of a self-build dwelling and its subsequent occupation. Notwithstanding that the dwelling would be of great importance to its future occupiers; due to the scale and nature of the proposal such benefits would be modest. Potential ecological enhancements are also likely to be modest in nature.

No suitably robust evidence has been provided to demonstrate that the appeal scheme would result in any meaningful public benefits through improvements to surface water drainage or useability of the adjacent public right of way.

Together the other matters raised do not outweigh the above identified harm and conflict with the development plan.

For the reasons outlined above, the appeal scheme is contrary to the adopted development plan and there are no material considerations that indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with it. The appeal is therefore dismissed.