Appeal 6004425

The appeal is dismissed.

An application for costs was made by [name] against Vale of White Horse District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

Both main parties have referred to policies in the emerging development plan within the evidence. Both main parties have referred to policies in the emerging development plan within the evidence. The Council has submitted a Joint Local Plan (JLP) with [name] for Examination. Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) instructs that weight may be given to relevant policies in emerging plans according to the stage of preparation of that plan. However there appears to be uncertainty regarding progress on the JLP and I therefore afford limited weight to those emerging policies

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

The appeal site is a semi-detached property in an established residential area. The house is set back from the road on an elongated plot, with a wide driveway to the side giving access to a spacious rear garden. Dwellings to the north of [address] are of a similar design, have a staggered building line, and are characterised by similar plot sizes, with long open rear gardens.

There is a wider variety of house types in the surrounding streets, but they have a similar scale and suburban character, being set back from the street and, although there is some variety, they generally have similar plot sizes. To the rear of the appeal site and perpendicular to it, are two short terraces of bungalows, fronting the end of [address]. They have smaller plot sizes and are atypical of the surrounding area. The wider area is therefore characterised by residential buildings set back from the roadway, with similar plot sizes, with reasonably sized, open rear gardens.

A Certificate of Lawful Development1 was recently issued for an outbuilding of a slightly smaller footprint than the appeal proposal and in a similar location: comprising a garage, gym and home office. This constitutes a valid fallback position as there is a significant likelihood that the development, subject of the Certificate, would take place should the appeal before me fail. I have, therefore, given substantial weight to the fallback scheme in considering this appeal.

The development proposed is the construction of a one bedroom dwelling in the rear garden of [site address] , with a pitched roof and rendered external walls to match the donor dwelling. It would be capable of functioning as an independent dwelling and would introduce a residential use to the rear garden at the appeal site.

Whilst the scale of the proposed development would be broadly similar to that permitted by the Certificate of Lawful Development, its use would be of a different character to an outbuilding ancillary to the host dwelling. There is likely to be a greater intensity of activity associated with its permanent occupation, as opposed to the more occasional use associated with an ancillary building. Whilst the current use as a garden, or potential use of part of the site as an outbuilding, does not preclude outdoor domestic paraphernalia, there is likely to be a greater demand for such items through the introduction of a further household on the site.

The proposed development may provide sufficient outdoor amenity space for both the retained and proposed dwelling, however the subdivision of the site with a boundary hedge would result in the significant reduction in plot size, which would not be the case with an ancillary building on the site. The proposed development would be slightly larger than that of the fallback scheme and would have a cramped appearance in relation to other dwellings and plot sizes in the immediate vicinity. As such would be more harmful to the open character of the rear garden and the character of the wider area, than the fallback scheme.

Whilst the proposed development would only be seen in glimpsed views from the street and would be seen against the backdrop of the bungalows beyond, it would nonetheless introduce a more intensive and visibly residential, rather than ancillary, use at odds with the open, spacious character of the rear gardens.

A landscaping plan has been put forward as part of the proposals. Whilst this would lessen the impact of the proposed development from the street it would not overcome the harm I have identified.

For these reasons, the proposed development would be more harmful to the character and appearance of the area than the fallback scheme. Due to this harm it would therefore conflict with Policy CP37 of the Vale of White Horse Local Plan (the Local Plan), 2016, which seeks to deliver high quality design which responds positively to the site and its surroundings.

The description of development indicates that it would be self-build. Whilst it would contribute towards supporting self- and custom-build in the area, no means of securing the development as self-build has been put forward. The appellant has 1 Council Ref.: P25/V0310/LDP, dated 28 March 2025. suggested that a condition could be applied to a planning permission requiring a Section [address], although a suggested draft has not been provided. However the Planning Practice Guidance2 (PPG) is clear that such a condition is unlikely to be appropriate or pass the test of enforceability.

The description also states that the development would be for over 55's. Policy CP26 of the Local Plan offers general support for the delivery of homes which meet the current and future needs of the ageing population. Whilst provision of a dwelling suitable for members of an ageing population weigh in favour of the proposal, no means of securing the development as such has been put forward. Again the appellant has suggested that a condition requiring a Section [address], although a suggested draft has not been provided. However the PPG is clear that such a condition is unlikely to be appropriate or pass the test of enforceability.

Were it possible to secure the development as a self-build dwelling for the over 55’s, the modest associated benefits would not lead me to an alternative conclusion in this case.

My attention has been drawn to the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the Framework, however Paragraph 12 of the Framework is clear that this presumption does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision-making.

The appellant has referred to the consultation on a revised draft of the Framework3 in December 2025. Given its status, as a public consultation document, it has not been determinative in this appeal.

My attention has been drawn to a number of other developments in the vicinity. [name] have not been provided with full details of each case, a number of those examples are infill development to the side of properties, rather than involving subdivision of rear gardens. Those with development to the rear do not appear to be in directly comparable situations, either because they are not in a similar suburban context or they are replacements of existing, back-land buildings. They are therefore of limited value as comparators and they do not lead me to an alternative conclusion in this case.

For the reasons given above, having considered the development plan as a whole and having regard to all other matters, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed.