Appeal Decision 3244074 (Wychavon District Council) — 2021-01-04

Appeal Decision 3244074 (Wychavon District Council) — 2021-01-04
Outcome: Split decision
Case type: Planning Appeal
Development: Minor Dwellings
Appeal type: Hearing
Location: Land adjacent to Barlwych Cottage, Hill Furze, Fladbury, Worcestershire , WR10 2NB
Postcode: WR10 2NB
LPA: Wychavon District Council
LPA code: E07000238
PINS reference: 3244074

=== FULL INSPECTOR DECISION ===

Appeal Decisions
Hearing Held on 10 November 2020
Site visit made on 12 November 2020
by G Rollings BA (Hons) MAUD MRTPI
An Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 4th January 2021

Appeal A Ref: APP/H1840/W/19/3244074
Land to the Rear of Barlwych Cottage, Hill Furze, Fladbury,
Worcestershire, WR10 2NB
•
•
•
•

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Mr Rob Newman against the decision of Wychavon District
Council.
The application Ref 19/01058/FUL, dated 1 May 2019, was refused by notice dated
4 July 2019.
The development proposed is conversion of existing former transport haulage buildings
into 1 No. 2 bedroom dwelling and 2 No. 3 bedroom dwellings and the erection of a new
self-build live/work unit together with ancillary works.

Appeal B Ref: APP/H1840/W/20/3257218
Land to the Rear of Barlwych Cottage, Hill Furze, Fladbury, WR10 2NB
•
•
•
•

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a refusal to grant planning permission.
The appeal is made by Mr Rob Newman against the decision of Wychavon District
Council.
The application Ref 20/00767/FUL, dated 20 April 2020, was refused by notice dated
18 June 2020.
The development proposed is conversion of existing former transport haulage buildings
into 1 No. 2 bedroom dwelling and 2 No. 3 bedroom dwellings, new garages and
ancillary works.

Decisions
1. Appeal A is allowed and planning permission is granted for conversion of
existing former transport haulage buildings into 1 No. 2 bedroom dwelling and
2 No. 3 bedroom dwellings and the erection of a new self-build live-work unit
together with ancillary works at Land to the Rear of Barlwych Cottage, Hill
Furze, Fladbury, Worcestershire, WR10 2NB in accordance with the terms of
the application, Ref 19/01058/FUL, dated 1 May 2019, subject to the conditions
listed in Annex 1, attached to this letter.
2. Appeal B is dismissed.
Application for Costs
3. Prior to the Hearing, an application for costs was made by Mr Rob Newman
against Wychavon District Council. This application is the subject of a separate
Decision.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Appeal Decisions APP/H1840/W/19/3244074, APP/H1840/W/20/3257218

Procedural Matter
4. The Local Plan is at an early stage of review and consequently I have given the
emerging policies limited weight in my decision.
Background and Main Issues
5. The wholly residential elements of the two appeal schemes are similar in
nature, including their layout, siting and appearances. Appeal A incorporates a
live-work building proposed as a self-build scheme. Appeal B substitutes
garages in place of the live-work building, together with alterations to the site
layout in terms of parking arrangements. Different reasons were given by the
Council in its refusals of both schemes.
6. The main issues are:
• In respect of Appeal A only, whether the proposal would be appropriately
located, with particular regard to its proximity to facilities and services;
• In respect of Appeal A only, the effect of the proposed development on the
local supply of self-building housing;
• In respect of both appeals, whether appropriate provision has been made for
the change of use, with particular regard to marketing of the site for
employment uses;
• In respect of both appeals, the effect of the proposals on protected species.
Reasons
Location
7. The site of the appeals is in a rural location in open countryside, outside
defined settlement boundaries, but is amongst a small cluster of dwellings.
Although mostly unused in recent years, the site previously operated as a
haulage depot and is previously developed land, and the proposals would reuse
existing buildings. As such, the Council has not objected to the ‘in principle’
redevelopment of the site for the purposes of housing, with regard to its
location. The reason for refusal corresponding with this main issue is limited
to the live-work element of the proposal, and is therefore only relevant to
Appeal A.
8. Planning policy within Wychavon is directed by the joint South Worcestershire
Development Plan (2016) (SWDP), of which Policy SWDP 4 requires proposals
to demonstrate that development will minimise demand for travel and offer
sustainable travel choices, amongst other considerations. Considering the
site’s location relevant to the nearest main settlements and the routes thereto,
it is not sustainably located for reasonable access to local shops and services
for any mode other than private vehicles. As such, the proposal would not
offer sustainable travel choices in accordance with Policy SWDP 4.
9. The proposed live-work use would have four staff working on site, of which two
already work at the adjacent cottage where the proposed occupier is presently
based, with the others to work on a part-time basis. Around four visitors a
week would be expected to visit the site, on pre-booked visits. The proposed
dwellings, of which two would be large enough to house families, would
generate their own traffic and as such the proposed number of new trips
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

2

Appeal Decisions APP/H1840/W/19/3244074, APP/H1840/W/20/3257218

generated by the live-work element of the proposal would represent only a
modest proportion of overall journeys to and from the site. As such, the harm
generated solely by the live-work element of the Appeal would be limited.
10. Whilst the previous use of the site could have generated more numerous and
heavier vehicle movements, this ceased some years ago with the site since
remaining disused, and I am not persuaded that there would be a realistic
prospect of such a use resuming were the appeal to fail. Accordingly, I have
given only limited weight to this consideration.
11. Nonetheless, the appeal proposal would conflict with Policy SWDP 4, and
I therefore conclude that in respect of Appeal A, the proposed development
would not be appropriately located, with particular regard to its proximity to
facilities and services.
Self-build housing
12. The live-work building, part of Appeal A only, is proposed as a self-build
structure. The Council does not have any adopted policies relating to self-build
development. The Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended
by the Housing and Planning Act 2016) places a responsibility on Local Planning
Authorities to provide enough permissions to meet the demand for self-build
and custom housing.
13. In a recent appeal decision1, the Inspector found that notwithstanding the
Council’s methodology in calculating the self-build register entries, there was
insufficient supply to meet the demand for this form of development. The
Council has revised its methodology and, since the determination of that
appeal, we have moved into the next base period. Although there remains
some disagreement between the main parties over the number of entries on
the Council’s self-build register, the discrepancy is minor and the cumulative
demand from the first two base periods is between 44 and 48 plots.
14. The Council’s November 2020 Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Register
Progress Report indicates that it has granted permission for 25 self-build and
custom housebuilding plots. These are mostly part of larger permissions, but
there is clearly some unmet demand for plots. The single plot that would be
provided as part of the Appeal A proposal would have only a small impact on
the shortfall but would nonetheless be beneficial in assisting the Council to
meet its provision responsibility.
15. A completed Unilateral Undertaking has been provided by the appellant to bind
the construction of the live-work unit as a self-build structure. This complies
with the statutory tests and I am satisfied that it would provide sufficient
assurance in binding the self-build method of construction.
16. I therefore conclude that in respect of Appeal A, the proposed development
would have a positive effect on the local supply of self-build housing.
Marketing
17. As an existing (or former) employment site, Local Plan Policy SWDP 12 is
relevant. Criterion B requires proposals to change the use of such sites from
employment-generating purposes to undergo marketing for at least twelve
1

Appeal Ref: APP/H1840/W/19/3241879; Decision date: 23 July 2020.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

3

Appeal Decisions APP/H1840/W/19/3244074, APP/H1840/W/20/3257218

months, with more specific requirements set out in Annex F of the Plan. These
requirements relate to both Appeals, and I shall examine the criteria in turn.
18. At the time of its decision on the Appeal A application, the Council considered
that the required period of marketing had not been fulfilled, amongst other
concerns. However, the period had been completed at the time of the decision
on the Appeal B application. Given that the marketing period for the property
spanned both the assessment period of the both applications, I am satisfied
that the time compliance requirements have now been met.
19. I acknowledge the appellant’s point that potential rental prices were flexible
and offered potential for negotiation. This is against a background of
competition for ex-employment sites within the area and the access constraints
of the appeals site. However, in the absence of specific information, I am not
able to assess the compliance with criterion B of Annex F.
20. Marketing information in compliance with criterion C has been provided. I have
taken into account the advice of Annex F that a flexible approach to the
marketing exercise can be undertaken by the decision-maker, given the local
conditions. I appreciate that the aforementioned factors, together with the poor
condition of the existing buildings and constraints on their conversion for a
commercial return, limits their attractiveness to occupiers. Nonetheless, the
Council’s requirements are clear and I share its concerns regarding the offer of
a high fixed ‘whole property’ price and an absence of information setting out
information such as rent relief, for example.
21. Despite the shortcomings of the marketing exercise, the Appeal A proposal
would remain an employment-generating capability, and as such, I place only
limited weight on the need for the exercise. The absence of such a retained use
within the Appeal B leads me to a different conclusion.
22. I therefore conclude, in respect of Appeal A, that appropriate provision has
been made for the change of use, and that there is no conflict with SWDP
Policies SWDP 2 and SWDP 12. Together, these require appropriate retention
and development of employment sites in open countryside, amongst other
considerations.
23. In respect of Appeal B, I conclude that appropriate provision has not been
made for the change of use, with particular regard to marketing of the site for
employment uses, and that the proposal conflicts with SWDP Policies SWDP 2
and SWDP 12.
Protected species
24. In both of its decisions, the Council provided different reasons for refusal
relating to the developments’ impacts on protected species. Additional survey
work was undertaken since the Council’s refusal of the first application, and
this main issue relates to Appeal A and Appeal B.
25. Two bat species were identified as having daytime roosting and feeding
habitats in the existing brick barn. Circular 06/20052 requires me to have
regard to three tests considered by Natural England with regard to species
licensing.
2

Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Circular 06/2005: Biodiversity and geological conservation – statutory
obligations and their impact within the planning system, 16 August 2005.
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

4

Appeal Decisions APP/H1840/W/19/3244074, APP/H1840/W/20/3257218

26. The conversion of the single-storey brick barn would ensure the future use of
the building, which is in a poor state and likely subject to further habitat
degradation if remaining undeveloped. The proposed conversion would result
in disturbance to the roosts. Although is no evidence to suggest that the
species were present in the building when it was previously occupied, it is
possible that any ‘bad neighbour’ use generating noise and disturbance, such
as that which previously operated from the site, could also lead to degradation.
A potential commercial occupier could consider occupation of the building by
bats as a constraint, and given the site’s limitations as set out in the previous
section, I acknowledge that the addition of a cohabitation requirement may
have further decreased viability for any possible occupier. The alternative ‘do
nothing’ approach of allowing the building to continue to degrade and
eventually fail is not preferable to providing an assured, secure habitat. The
requirements of the first and second tests are satisfied.
27. The provision of alternative habitat within the proposed live-work or garage
buildings in Appeals A and B respectively would provide satisfactory spaces and
separation from the uses to be appropriate. Appropriate replacement nesting
and breeding sites for the swallows and other birds observed during the
biodiversity surveys will also be provided. The action proposed would not be
detrimental to the maintenance of the species, and the requirements of the
third test are satisfied.
28. Although appropriate surveys have been undertaken for the purposes of
planning permission, their age may require further work to be undertaken in
preparation for European Protected Species Licensing. Nonetheless, regarding
this main issue, I find that in respect of both Appeals, the effects of the
proposals on protected species would not result in unreasonable harm. There
would be no conflict with SWDP Policy SWDP 22, which requires development
to have regard to protected species and mitigate against any loss of favourable
conditions, amongst other considerations.
Other issues
29. Several matters were raised by other interested parties. I acknowledge the
concerns put to me, particularly with the potential for additional traffic, noise
and disturbance, site drainage and road conditions. Considering the previous
use of the site and any potential commercial replacement use, the impacts
from the proposals in these appeals would be lesser in scale. Any other
potentially detrimental impacts can be mitigated through planning conditions.
30. Examples of previous appeal decisions were provided by both main parties and
I have considered these where the circumstances of the particular case were of
suitable relevance to the appeals before me.
Planning Balance
31. I shall examine the merits of each of the Appeals in turn.
32. The Council does not currently have adopted policies regulating the provision of
self-build housing, which is a component of Appeal A. I have had regard to the
paragraph 11d requirement of the National Planning Policy Framework (2019)
(the Framework) in granting permission where there are no relevant
development plan policies, unless any adverse impacts of doing so would
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

5

Appeal Decisions APP/H1840/W/19/3244074, APP/H1840/W/20/3257218

the Framework as a whole. I found that there would be some harm with
regard to the proposal’s location in the countryside, although this would be
limited, and that there would be an absence of harm with regard to the change
of use. The new building would provide some biodiversity benefits in providing
an assured future habitat for protected species, but this is countered by the
disturbance that would occur to the current bat roosts and is therefore a
neutral factor in my balance.
33. A further consideration is the condition of the existing buildings, which is not
considered as part of the main issues, but was discussed at the Hearing.
Residential conversion secures an assured future use for the existing buildings.
The viability of conversion for potential business uses is unknown, but given
market rental values, is likely to be lower than that of residential uses, and
thus an assured future for the buildings is not guaranteed. The retention of a
business use within the Appeal A proposal is also a factor of beneficial weight.
34. The provision of one self-build unit would be of some beneficial value, albeit
minimal, but would nonetheless assist the Council in reconciling the supply
shortfall for self-build housing. In balancing the total benefits against the harm
with regard to the location of the development, this harm is not significantly
and demonstrably outweighed by the benefits. Appeal A therefore succeeds.
35. In the absence of a self-build component in Appeal B, the balancing
requirement of Framework paragraph 11d is not engaged. The benefits from
the retention of the buildings, together with an absence of harm in regard to
biodiversity, are similar to those of Appeal A. However, as a wholly residential
proposal, I have found that appropriate provision has not been made with
regard to the change of use, and moreover the change of use of this
employment site would result in harm which is not outweighed by the benefits
of the scheme. Accordingly, Appeal B does not succeed.
Conditions
36. Conditions were agreed by the main parties in the Statement of Common
Ground, with the exception of Condition No. 14 as listed in Annex 1, which was
suggested by the parties at the Hearing. I have assessed them against the
tests set out in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)3. Condition No. 2 is
included for the absence of doubt, and Nos. 3 and 15 to both protect the living
conditions of nearby occupiers and in the interests of highway safety. Nos. 4
and 17 are necessary to ensure that the proposed development contributes to
the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity at the site and in the wider
area. No. 5 has been applied to ensure that risks from land contamination to
the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together
with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure
that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to
workers, neighbours and other off-site receptors.
37. Condition Nos. 6, 8, 9, 12 and 16 are included in the interests of preserving the
character and appearance of the area, and additionally for reasons of
biodiversity (No. 8) and highway safety (No. 9). No. 7 is included to preserve
highway safety. Nos. 10, 13 and 14 are required to ensure that the
development is environmentally sustainable, with No. 13 also applied for the
acceptable management of drainage and waste water. Conditions 16 and 17
3

PPG reference ID: 21a-003-20190723; revision date: 23 07 2019.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

6

Appeal Decisions APP/H1840/W/19/3244074, APP/H1840/W/20/3257218

include permitted development restrictions, but taking into account the
floorspace ratio of the live-work unit and the biodiversity considerations, these
exceptional circumstances warrant their inclusion.
38. A Unilateral Undertaking has been provided to provide a covenant for the
construction of the live-work unit as a self-build dwelling, together with its
initial occupation. The suggested condition requiring similar is therefore
unnecessary and has not been applied.
Conclusion
39. For the reasons given above I conclude that Appeal A should be allowed.
40. For the reasons given above I conclude that Appeal B should be dismissed.

G Rollings
INSPECTOR
(Annexes follow.)

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

7

Appeal Decisions APP/H1840/W/19/3244074, APP/H1840/W/20/3257218

ANNEX 1 – LIST OF CONDITIONS, APPEAL A.
1)

The development hereby permitted shall begin no later than three years from
the date of this decision.

2)

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans: 993 01; 993 07; 993 08; 993 09; 993 15; 993 16b;
993 17b.

3)

No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a
Construction Method Statement has been submitted to, and approved in
writing by the local planning authority. The Statement shall provide for:
a) measures to ensure that vehicles leaving the site do not deposit mud or
other detritus on the public highway;
b) details of site operative parking areas, material storage areas and the
location of site operatives’ facilities (offices, toilets etc);
c) the hours that delivery vehicles will be permitted to arrive and depart, and
arrangements for unloading and manoeuvring which must be accommodated
within the site;
d) details of any temporary construction accesses and their reinstatement;
and
e) details of any boundary hoarding which must be set back clear of visibility
splays.
The approved Construction Method Statement shall be adhered to throughout
the construction period for the development.

4)

No development shall take place until a detailed ecological mitigation and
enhancement scheme, which shall be based on the conclusions and
recommendations set out in section 5 of the Countryside Consultants Ltd Bat
Survey dated October 2019, has been submitted to and approved in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. The measures so approved shall be carried
out thereafter and retained on site.

5)

Unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority development, other
than that required to be carried out as part of an approved scheme of
remediation, must not commence until the following parts a) to f) have been
complied with:
a) A preliminary risk assessment must be carried out. This study shall take
the form of a Phase I desk study and site walkover and shall include the
identification of previous site uses, potential contaminants that might
reasonably be expected given those uses and any other relevant information.
The preliminary risk assessment report shall contain a diagrammatical
representation (conceptual model) based on the information above and shall
include all potential contaminants, sources and receptors to determine
whether a site investigation is required and this should be detailed in a report
supplied to the Local Planning Authority. The risk assessment must be
approved in writing before any development takes place.
b) Where an unacceptable risk is identified a scheme for detailed site
investigation must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority prior to being undertaken. The scheme must be designed
to assess the nature and extent of any contamination and must be led by the
findings of the preliminary risk assessment. The investigation and risk

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

8

Appeal Decisions APP/H1840/W/19/3244074, APP/H1840/W/20/3257218

assessment scheme must be compiled by competent persons and must be
designed in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency's "Model
Procedures for the Management of Contaminated Land, CLR11".
c) Detailed site investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken and a
written report of the findings produced. This report must be approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to any development taking place.
The investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken by competent
persons and must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the
Environment Agency's "Model Procedures for the Management of
Contaminated Land, CLR11".
d) Where identified as necessary, a detailed remediation scheme to bring the
site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable
risks to identified receptors shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority in advance of undertaking. The remediation
scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as Contaminated Land under
Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended
use of the land after remediation.
e) The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with
its terms prior to the commencement of development, other than that
required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority.
f) Following the completion of the measures identified in the approved
remediation scheme, a validation report that demonstrates the effectiveness
of the remediation carried out shall be submitted to and approved in writing of
the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of any buildings.
In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the
approved development that was not previously identified, it must be reported
in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and
risk assessment must be undertaken and where necessary a remediation
scheme must be prepared, each of which will be subject to the approval in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. Following the completion of any
measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a validation report
shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority
prior to the occupation of any buildings.
6)

No building operations shall commence until details of the materials to be
used in the conversion of the barns or construction of the external surfaces of
the live-work unit hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in
writing by the Local Planning Authority. The details to be submitted shall
include:
a) type, colour, texture, size, coursing, finish, jointing and pointing of
brickwork/stonework;
b) type, colour, texture, size and design of roofing materials; and
c) details of external doors and windows including information on finish.
The development shall be carried out using the materials as approved and
retained in that form thereafter.

7)

The development hereby approved shall not be occupied until an area has
been laid out within the curtilage of each dwelling for the parking and turning

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

9

Appeal Decisions APP/H1840/W/19/3244074, APP/H1840/W/20/3257218

of cars in accordance with County standards. The parking and turning areas
shall thereafter be retained for the purpose of vehicle parking only.
8)

Before the first use/occupation of the development hereby permitted a
scheme of landscaping shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. The landscaping scheme shall include:
a) a plan(s) showing details of all existing trees and hedges on the application
site. The plan should include, for each tree/hedge, the accurate position,
canopy spread and species, together with an indication of any proposals for
felling/pruning and any proposed changes in ground level, or other works to
be carried out, within the canopy spread.
b) a plan(s) showing the layout of proposed tree, hedge and shrub planting
and grass areas.
c) a schedule of proposed planting - indicating species, sizes at time of
planting and numbers/densities of plants.
d) a written specification outlining cultivation and other operations associated
with plant and grass establishment.
e) a schedule of maintenance, including watering and the control of
competitive weed growth, for a minimum period of five years from first
planting.
All planting and seeding/turfing shall be carried out in accordance with the
approved details in the first planting and seeding/turfing seasons following the
completion or first occupation/use of the development, whichever is the
sooner. The planting shall be maintained in accordance with the approved
schedule of maintenance.
Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years from the completion of
the planting, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall
be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and
species.

9)

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/first used until
details of a precise specification of the proposed materials for the hard
landscaping of the site (including roads, paths, parking areas and other hard
surfaces) are submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The hard landscaping of the site shall be completed before the first
use/occupation of the development hereby permitted. Development shall be
carried out in accordance with the approved details.

10) Prior to the occupation of the live-work unit hereby permitted, details of
renewable or low carbon energy generating facilities to be incorporated as
part of the live-work building shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The details shall demonstrate that at least 10%
of the predicted energy requirements of the development will be met through
the use of renewable/low carbon energy generating facilities. The approved
facilities shall be provided prior to any part of the development hereby
permitted being first occupied, or in accordance with a timetable submitted to
and approved by the Local Planning Authority as part of the details required
by this condition.
11) The work element floorspace of the live-work unit hereby permitted shall be
finished ready for occupation before the residential floorspace is occupied and
the residential use shall not precede commencement of the business use. The
https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

10

Appeal Decisions APP/H1840/W/19/3244074, APP/H1840/W/20/3257218

business floorspace of the live-work unit shall not be used for the sale of
goods to visiting members of the public or for any use falling within Use
Classes A3, A4, A5, B2, C1 or C2 as defined under the Town and Country
Planning (Use Classes) Order 2015, or in any provision equivalent to that
Class in any statutory instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or
without modification. The residential floorspace of the live-work unit shall not
be occupied other than by a person solely or mainly employed, or last
employed in the business occupying the business floorspace of the associated
unit, a widow or widower of such a person, or any resident dependants.
12) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/first used until
details of the facilities for the storage of refuse for it has been submitted to
and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The storage facilities
so approved shall be retained thereafter.
13) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/first used until full
details of all foul and surface water drainage systems to serve the
development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. The approved drainage works shall be implemented in
accordance with the approved details before the first occupation/use of the
development hereby permitted and shall be retained thereafter.
14) The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied/first used until
written and illustrative details of the number, type and location of electric
vehicle charging points have been submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The charging points shall be maintained and
kept in good working order thereafter.
15) Demolition, clearance or construction work and deliveries to and from the site
in connection with the development hereby approved shall only take place
between the hours of 08.00 and 18.00 Monday to Friday and 08.00 and 13.00
on a Saturday. There shall be no demolition, clearance or construction work or
deliveries to and from the site on Sundays or Bank Holidays.
16) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General
Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any order revoking,
re-enacting, substituting, amending, extending, consolidating, replacing or
modifying that Order), no additions, extensions or external alterations, new
windows or other openings, building or enclosure, swimming or other pool
required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house other
than those expressly authorised by this permission shall be
constructed/carried out on the application site following the completion/first
use of the development hereby permitted.
17) Before the development hereby permitted is first occupied/used, details of any
external lighting to be provided in association with the development shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
details shall include times when the external lighting will not be switched on.
Only external lighting in accordance with approved details shall be provided
on the application site. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and
Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any Order
revoking or re-enacting that Order with or without modification) there shall be
no other external lighting provided on the application site.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

11

Appeal Decisions APP/H1840/W/19/3244074, APP/H1840/W/20/3257218

ANNEX 2 – APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Rob Newman
Lesley Newman

Appellant

Neil Pearce BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI

Agent

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Gavin Greenhow BA MA MRTPI

Development Control

Denise Duggan BSc MRTPI

Planning Policy

Reiss Sadler BSc MA

Planning Policy

ANNEX 3 – DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING
1: SWDP Authorities Monitoring Report, December 2019.
2: Wychavon Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Register form letters dated
30 May 2017 and 15 June 2017.
3. Email discussion between the main parties referring to self-build housing supply.
4. Wychavon District Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Register Progress
Report(s) dated December 2019, December 2019 (August 2020 minor update),
and November 2020.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

12