The site contained two small dilapidated buildings and a surrounding area that could lawfully be used for the storage of building materials, timber, builders' plant and equipment and scaffolding. A lawful development certificate (LDC) confirmed that the buildings could also be used to store domestic furniture and as stables. The 225m2 replacement building would be slightly larger than the combined floor space of those to be removed.
The building's height and mass would make it a conspicuous feature visible from numerous public vantage points, the inspector found. However, he accepted that allowing the appeal would enable the removal of unsightly buildings and prevent external storage. The LDC let the appellant store large quantities of materials in the open without height restriction, he noted.
Although these matters weighed in favour of allowing the appeal, he concluded that the construction of an access road over an adjoining field coupled with the landscape impact of the replacement building tipped the balance firmly against the scheme. The road, he observed, would involve major engineering works and would appear as an unsightly scar on a hillside.
DCS Number 100-050-587
Inspector Neil Pope; Hearing.