🏆 Winning Arguments

55. A temporary permission will also allow time for additional pitches to come forward, or for the appellant to make other arrangements whilst providing stability to the occupants, including the children, of the site. 56. Therefore, taking all these points together, the benefits of granting temporary permission would substantially outweigh the adverse affects, when assessed against the national decision-making policies of the Framework. 57. Consequently, the development is in conflict with the development plan. However, material considerations indicate a decision other than in accordance with the development plan. 58. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and I will grant a temporary permission to the appellant and other occupiers of the site for a period of ten years. This will be restricted to the current occupiers as I have taken into account their personal circumstances and interests of the children in granting this permission. Conclusion 64. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal succeeds in ground (a) and a temporary condition is granted on the deemed planning application. https://www.gov.uk/planning-

The appeal is allowed, the enforcement notice is quashed and planning permission

41. The parking, highway and refuse storage conditions are more relevant to a permission for a dwelling. However, it would not be wholly irrelevant to impose them on a permission for a building of this scale within a residential garden, as there could be some increase in use of the site if the building were used for purposes associated with the existing use of the land. Likewise if it were put to some other, hitherto, unknown use. 42. Importantly, if, as I have suggested here, any permission that I grant also means that the building can be used as a dwellinghouse on the provisions of S75(3) of the 1990 Act, then those conditions are clearly necessary. As is the restriction preventing use as an HMO, due to the small size of the site. I shall impose similar conditions here. Conclusion on ground (a) 43. The building at the site does not have any adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area or living conditions of neighbouring residents, whether or not it is in an active use. In the event that it could be put to use as a dwelling, conditions can ensure that any potential residual harm can be mitigated and sufficient facilities are provided. 44. Subject to the Conclusion …

6. The main issue in this appeal is whether the Council’s decision to refuse a LDC was well founded. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/K0235/X/25/3364376

As these alterations would materially affect the external appearance of the building, I therefore find they would constitute “development” within s55 of the Act. 9. The appellant confirms1 that all materials to be used throughout would match existing materials and submits that the development would be “permitted development” within the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (“the Order”). 10. The Council accepts, and I agree, that the two windows and pedestrian door in matching materials would meet all the conditions and limitations for alterations to a dwellinghouse under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A of the Order. Also, the submitted plans show that the rooflights would not protrude more than 0.15m above the existing roof slope. Although the plans do not indicate whether the rooflight would be capable of being opened, it appears likely, having regard to its position within the roof slope, that any opening parts would be situated more than 1.7 metres above the floor level of the room in which it is installed. Thus, provided that the rooflights are fitted with obscure glazing, they would meet all the Conclusion 12. For the reasons given above,…

The appeal is allowed and attached to this decision is a certificate of lawful use or

5. The main issues are the effect of the proposed advertisement on the visual amenity of the area, with particular regard to the CA and Grade II listed buildings.

9. The proposed advertisement would be visible from the CA and listed buildings. However, due to its location to the north of the CA combined with its location on the side of a building it would only be visible in views looking north, out of the CA. In these views it would be seen in the context of the rugby stadium, nearby commercial uses and public house. As the CA and listed buildings are already experienced, and in many cases, seen with, diverse advertisements, there would be no harm from the proposal being within their setting. Thus, it would preserve the settings of the CA and listed buildings. 10. Adjacent properties are set back from the road, and the billboard would be positioned perpendicular to them. Although there would be some light spill, given the orientation, separation distances and existing street lighting, the proposal would not result in unacceptable harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Furthermore, conditions limiting light levels would ensure that the proposal would not have a harmful impact on nearby occupiers. 11. In light of the above, the proposed advertisement would not harm visual amenity. Conclusion 13. For the reasons given above the appeal …

The appeal is allowed and express consent is granted for the display of the

7. The main issues in the appeal are: • The effect of the proposed development on the setting of nearby listed buildings and the Beckington Conservation Area (CA); • Whether the proposed development would be likely to unacceptably increase the risk to bathing water quality at the designated Farleigh Hungerford river bathing site; • Whether the proposed development would be suitably located and whether it would be harmful to the long term sustainability of the settlement.

The balance in this case is relatively straightforward. • There would be harm to the setting of listed buildings and the CA. This must carry considerable importance and weight even through the harm would be limited as explained above. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 8 Appeal Decision APP/E3335/W/25/3375062 • The benefits of the proposal include the provision of market housing, which carries significant weight in a location where there is evidenced unmet need. • The provision of affordable housing also attracts significant weight. • In addition there are benefits resulting from the provision of open space available to the public and the economic benefits associated with the construction phase and support for village services. These carry moderate weight. • There is no conflict with the development plan in respect of drainage or location as set out above. 40. In my judgement the benefits of the proposal clearly outweigh the harm to heritage assets. Local Plan Policy DP3 requires that proposals must justify any harm to heritage assets and demonstrate overriding public benefits which would outweigh harm. The proposal complies with this requirement, which is also generally com…

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of 20

4. The main issue is whether the Council’s decision to refuse to issue an LDC was well founded. This turns on whether: • Use as an artists’ studio continued uninterrupted for a 10 year period prior to the LDC application; and • The use that has taken place at the building falls within Class E of Part A of Schedule 2 to The Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended). https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate Appeal Decision APP/V5570/X/25/3360983

24. The Use Classes Order establishes at Article 2 that “industrial process” means a process for or incidental to purposes including ‘the making of any article or part of any article (including a ship or vessel, or a film, video or sound recording)’. It seems to me that the creation of items of art would, in most cases, fall naturally within that definition. An appeal decision from 2014, together with extracts from 2 planning use directories and The National Land Use Database provided by the appellant support my view that artists’ studios are generally likely to fall within Class E. 25. The Council argues that there is insufficient information to demonstrate Class E use in this instance, and that the actual use of the building might not fall within a use class at all. However, I am satisfied that this building has been used primarily for the making of items of art, such that the use can properly be regarded as falling within Class E. The annual open day, during which art works were displayed, does not indicate any different use, but is rather a reflection of the primary use as an artists’ studio in which items of art were made. That is consistent with a Class E use. None of the ev…

The appeal is allowed and attached to this decision is a certificate of lawful use or

Conclusion on Ground (a) and the Deemed Planning Application 63. In accordance with policy LG6 of the SLP, I have assessed the development against the Framework and found the development is inappropriate in the Green Belt and very special circumstances to support the retention of the toilet block for purposes ancillary to the Butterfly World Biome visitor attraction without condition 1 have not been demonstrated. The appeal on ground (a) fails and planning permission shall be refused on the DPA. Appeal B on Ground (g) 64. The period for compliance specified in Notice B is 6 months. However, the appellant seeks a period of 12 months as the business uses taking place on the site could not operate without these facilities. No substantiated evidence has been provided as to whether any other toilet facilities exist on the appeal site. 65. Given my finding on Appeal A, there will be a continued need for toilet facilities to be provided to serve the development allowed. However, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I find 6 months is a reasonable period within which the appellant can look for suitable alternative facilities to serve the Appeal A development. 66. For the above …

The appeal is dismissed, the enforcement notice is upheld, and planning

2. The main issue is whether the Council’s decision to refuse to grant an LDC is wellfounded.

The 1 Burdle & Williams v SSE & New Forest RDC [1972] 1 WLR 1207 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decision APP/C4235/X/26/3377419 Council confirm that, post 17 April 2021, they have no evidence to the contrary regarding the tenancy of the building and its occupation by a separate household from the main dwelling. I also note the Council’s finding that ‘use and context of The Cottage/ Flat B up until April 2021 was ancillary to the host dwelling’, suggesting that it was not considered to be ancillary following this date. 11. The occupation of the appeal building by a separate household from 17 April 2021 was not merely ancillary to the occupation of the main dwelling but, as a matter of fact and degree, constituted occupation as a separate planning unit. Whilst parking and outdoor amenity areas are shared, I do not consider that these arrangements, particularly given their extent, sufficiently link the two properties such that they form a single planning unit. 12. I find, therefore, the evidence is sufficiently precise and unambiguous to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, the use of the appeal property as a separate dwelling commenced on or before 22 Oct…

The appeal is allowed and attached to this decision is a certificate of lawful use or