Our client was seeking to oppose a planning application for a replacement dwelling in the Berkshire village of Charvil. The site was on the edge of the built-up area, giving onto open countryside on three sides. We argued that such a site should be treated as being in the countryside for planning policy purposes. In particular, we noted that:

“…Policy CP11 of the adopted Core Strategy 2010 imposes strict limits on development outside the development limits of settlements in order to preserve the rural character and visual amenity of the countryside. Replacement dwellings must not result in inappropriate increases in the scale, form or footprint of the original building. The Council’s adopted Borough Design Guide stresses the importance of protecting local character in the countryside, including the river landscapes surrounding the River Thames.”

Although the Council’s policies did not apply a numerical limit to any increase in size, the planning history for the site showed the original dwelling had already been significantly extended by some 40%. We were able to show on this basis that the cumulative enlargement now proposed would be excessive and in breach of locally adopted planning policy limits.

The applicant sought to argue that those policies should not apply, as the Council was in the process of updating its development plan policies. However, we noted that:

“Whilst the Council is working on a Local Plan Update, this is still at an early stage and has not yet been subject to any form of public examination. Those emerging policies are therefore not yet capable of carrying significant weight as material planning considerations.”

We went on to show why we considered the proposal would harm the amenities and living conditions at our client’s property, owing to the size, scale, design and massing of the proposed development, its elevated position and proximity to the common boundary, and the position and layout of habitable room windows. This led us to conclude that:

“The resulting development would dominate the outlook from the adjoining property to a far greater degree and would singularly fail to preserve the general standards of amenity within the local area, whereby the dwellings typically enjoy spacious garden plots with minimal visual intrusion from other buildings.”

The application was subsequently withdrawn, as the applicant was unable to achieve a scheme that was acceptable to the local planning authority.

Note: Full details of the case have not been disclosed to protect the client’s privacy. Images shown are for illustrative purposes only and do not show the actual case.