🏆 Winning Arguments
Real PINS Inspector reasoning from appeals where refusals on Amenity were OVERTURNED. Use as precedent in your appeal statement — these are the arguments that actually defeated the LPA's position.
📊 Showing 8 PINS appeals where refusal on Amenity was OVERTURNED (national).
Each card quotes the inspector's reasoning verbatim — drop directly into your appeal statement as precedent (with proper attribution).
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3332515 (Maldon District Council) — 2024-05-02
📍 Maldon District Council PINS reference: 3332515 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 April 2024 by David Smith BA(Hons) DMS MRTI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/X1545/W/23/3332515 Bickleigh Mead, Loamy Hill Road, Tolleshunt Major, CM9 8LS The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr J King against the decision of Maldon District Council. The appli cation Ref is FUL/MAL/23/00127. The development proposed is for the construction of a replacement dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the construction of a replacement dwelling at Bickleigh Mead, Loamy Hill Road, Tolleshunt Major, CM9 8LS in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref FUL/MAL/23/00127, subject to the cond itions in the attached schedule. Applications for costs 2. The application for costs made by the appellant against the Council is the subject of a separate decision. Preliminary Matter 3. The Council has advised that it is no longer able to defend two of the rea sons for refusal . These relat e to the alleged non - compliance with Policy H4 of the Maldon District Local Development Plan and to the urbanising impact of the proposed development. Given the nature of the existing mobile home and the attached porch , the p roposal would accord with the policy on replacement dwellings. Its design would be in keeping with the character of the area and th at reason was inserted on the decision notice unintentionally. Main Issue 4. This is therefore whethe r a sequential test is required and whether the occupiers of the proposed replacement dwelling would be at risk of flooding. Reasons 5. maps show the appeal site to be located wit hin flood zone 3a. The modelling undertaken concludes that it is within flood zone 2. Either way , the proposed dwelling would be within an area with a medium or high probability of flooding. The National Planning Po licy Framework establishes that inappropriate development in such areas should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk. Appeal Decision APP/X1545/W/23/3332515 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 6. As part of th is approach , a sequential test should be applied to avoid, where possible, flood risk to peop le and property and to manage any residual risk . This aims to steer new development to areas with the lowest risk of flooding from any source. Policy D5 of the Local Development Plan confirms that this test should be undertaken in accordance with national planning policy. 7. The Framework establishes that some minor development should not be subject to the sequential test but the examples given at footnote 60 do not include replacement buildings. Furthermore, this type of proposal is not included in the list of minor development in the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) on Flood risk and coastal change . This does include reference to dev elop ment that does not increase the size of buildings but in the context of alterations . T he proposal , on the other hand, is for a new building in a different location to what is existing. 8. The PPG also refers to taking a pragmatic approach for proposals involving comparatively small extensions to existing premises where it might be impractical to accommodate the addit ional space elsewhere. However, the proposal does not fall into that category. Furthermore, th at advice relates to the application of the sequential test b ut one has not been done. If the need for this test were always set aside because it would not allow an owner to redevelop an existing use , that would defeat the broad object ive of national policy which is to minimise the adverse consequences of flooding. 9. The application was validated without a request for a sequentia l test to be undertaken. Neither was one required for the previous application for a replacement dwelling . The reasons for refusing this scheme did not allude to the absence of a sequential test. Outline planning permission was given for a replacement d welling at Mill Cottage, Heybridge in flood zone 2 or 3 but without any mention of a sequential test in the officer report. However, whilst the requirement for a sequential test is set natio nal ly . 10. The precise circumstances of the appeal are not covered by Government policy or the associated guidance . Nevertheless , when judged against the Framework and the PPG , a sequential test is not excluded for cases involving replacement buildings. That said, the reality is that if the appeal were dismissed for that reason, a lawful dwelling would remain within an area at risk of flooding. Therefore, the actual consequences for future occupiers should be examined. 11. The proposal would have a slightly smaller footprint than the existing dwelling and associated storage units . The finished floor level would be 22.95m AOD . This is above the 1% annual probability flooding level including an allowance for climate change and therefore the property would be dry in this event. The ground floor would also be above the 0.1% annual probability level and therefore there would be safe refuge . The Flood Risk Assessment includes recommendations as to how occupiers could respond effectively during a flood event. The Environment Agency raise no objection and also confirm that compensatory storage is not required. 12. A building used as a dwelling by Annex 3 of the Framework . If the site is treated as falling within flood zone 3a then an exception test is required to comply with national policy. To that end, it has been shown that the development would be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users , without increasing flood risk elsewhere . Appeal Decision APP/X1545/W/23/3332515 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 vul to the community t hat outweighs the flood risk. Indeed, o verall flood risk would be reduced. This test is therefore passed. 13. The PPG indicates that e ven where a flood risk assessment shows the development can be made safe throughout its lifetime without increasing risk elsewhere, the sequential test still needs to be satisfied. That is not so here but this is a case where other considerations are at play. In particular, there is already a legitimate residential use on the land . The proposal would lead to a lessening in the risks from flooding because its superior construction compared to the mobile home , the raising of the floor level by 0.65m above ground level and the ability to put in place emergency plans. 14. In conclusion, the occupiers of the propo sed replacement dwelling would not be at risk of flooding . Furthermore, the existing risk s would be significantly reduced . This benefit outweighs the absence of a sequential test as required by a strict application of national policy and the consequent conflict with Policy D5 . Indeed, the proposal is acceptable in terms of the risk from flooding. O ther Matters 15. Other objections have been raised in representations, including those from the Parish Council. Any future applications to r eplace caravans in the area would be judged against Policy H 4 and the outcome of this appeal does not set a precedent in this respect. Although Bickleigh Lane is also a bridleway , the proposal would be unlikely to lead a significant increase in traffic gi ven that a single dwelling already exists at the site . Similarly, there would be no unacceptable impact on road safety at the junction with Loamy Hill Road. 16. The use of the lane for construction traffic would be short - lived as would any resulting disturban ce. The scale of development is not so large that it should be prevented due to the nature and surfacing of the access to the site. There is no technical evidence that mains water pressure would be adversely affected. The proposed dwelling would be sin gle storey and sufficiently removed from neighbouring properties to avoid a loss of privacy. Conditions 17. The plans should be confirmed in the interests of certainty. In view of this, there is no need to stipulate that the materials used should be as appro ved since they are shown on the drawings. The existing dwelling and storage building should be removed within a prescribed time period as the scheme has been considered as a replacement rather than as an additional dwelling. To ensure a satisfactory appe arance, details of the treatment of the external areas should be secured , including any landscaping. 18. Given the scale of the project , the separation from nearby properties and the provisions of other legislation, a full construction management plan is not required. However, to safeguard living conditions, the hours of construction should be limited. Details of the contents of an evacua tion plan should be agreed and made available to occupiers in order to minimise any residual risk from flooding. 19. According to the application form , surface water and foul sewage would be disposed of by connecting to the mains sewer. T he Environmental Heal th Appeal Decision APP/X1545/W/23/3332515 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 officer requested that informatives be attached to any permission but there is no indication that further drainage details are required . Passage along the bridleway is protected by other legislation and there is therefore no need for a planning conditi on to secure free and unobstructed access. Conclusion 20. Because of the lack of a sequential test, the proposal would not accord with the development plan. However, this conflict is outweighed by the fact that the safety of residential occupiers at the site would be greater than it is at present. Future residents would not be at risk of flooding . Material considerations therefore indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan. So, fo r the reasons given , the p roposed replacement dwelling is acceptable and the appeal should succeed. David Smith INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/X1545/W/23/3332515 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawings nos 22 - 0055 - 001 REV A , 22 - 0055 - 002 REV A, 22 - 0055 - 003 REV A and 22 - 0055 - 004. 3) No development above slab level shall take place until a scheme to demolish and completely remove t he mobile home and storage and stable building shown on drawing no 22 - 0055 - 004 from the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The mobile home and storage and stable building sha ll be demolished and completely removed from the site in accordance with the approved scheme and with a timetable previously agreed in writing by the local planning authority. 4) No development above slab level shall take place until a soft and hard landscapi ng scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall include details of: a) Species of trees and shrubs to be planted, planting layouts with stock sizes and planting numbers/densities; b) A planting scheme implem entation programme, including ground protection and preparation, weed clearance, stock sizes, seeding rates, planting methods, mulching, plant protection, staking and/or other support; c) An aftercare and maintenance programme; d) Hard surfacing including materials , finishing and edgings ; and e) A timetable for implementation. The approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out in accordance with the timetable for implementation. Any trees or other plants approved as part of the landscaping scheme which die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size a nd species unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation. 5) Demolition or construction works shall only take place between 0730 and 1800 hours on weekdays; between 0800 hours and 1300 hours on Saturdays and not at any time on Sun days or Public Holidays. 6) No development above slab level shall take place until an emergency evacuation plan in the event of a flood has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The plan shall be based on the recommendat ions in the Flood Risk Assessment by Evans Rivers and Coastal July 2022 ( R ef 2558/RE/08 - 20/01 Revision A). The agreed evacuation plan shall be provided to the first occupiers of the dwelling herby permitted within one month of their occupation.⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
Conclusion 20. Because of the lack of a sequential test, the proposal would not accord with the development plan. However, this conflict is outweighed by the fact that the safety of residential occupiers at the site would be greater than it is at present. Future residents would not be at risk of flooding . Material considerations therefore indicate that the appeal should be decided other than in accordance with the development plan. So, fo r the reasons given , the p roposed replacement dwelling is acceptable and the appeal should succeed. David Smith
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3331533 (North Yorkshire Council) — 2024-05-02
📍 North Yorkshire Council PINS reference: 3331533 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 March 2024 by S J Lee BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 65 Wetherby Road, Knaresborough, North Yorkshire HG5 8LH The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. The appeal is made by Gladman Retirement Living against the decision of North Yorkshire Council. The application Ref is ZC23/02201/DVCMAJ. The application sought planning permission for d evelopment of r etirement a partments with care (Use Class C2) including the demolition of existing buildings, formation of new vehicular access, parking, retaining structures, hardstanding, sewer diversion, er ection of substation, refuse and maintenance stores, with associated works to trees, landscaping, formation of communal facilities and amenity space without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref 21/02251/FULMAJ, dated 19 December 2 022 . The condition in dispute is No 2 which states that: The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following drawings as mo dified by the further conditions of this permission: Location Plan 09999 - P2 - 201, Site Plan 09999 - P2 - 203 Rev B, Building Appearance 09999 - P2 - 232 Rev A, Building Elevations 09999 - P2 - 231 Rev A, Floor Plans 1 09999 - P2 - 221 Rev A, Floor Plans 2 09999 - P2 - 222 Rev A, Site Sections 09999 - P2 - 214 Rev A, Site Sections 09999 - P2 - 212 Rev A, Landscape Strategy 0 9999 - P2 - 241 Rev B, Materials Statement 09999 - P2 December 2021 Rev A . The reason given for the conditio n is: In order to ensure compliance with the approved drawings . Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for development of ret irement apartments with care (Use Class C2) including the demolition of existing buildings, formation of new vehicular access, parking, retaining structures, hardstanding, sewer diversion, erection of substation, refuse and maintenance stores, with associa ted works to trees, landscaping, formation of communal facilities and amenity space at 65 Wetherby Road, Knaresborough, North Yorkshire HG5 8LH in accordance with the application Ref ZC23/02201/DVCMAJ , without compliance with condition numbers 2, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 28 previously imposed on planning permission Ref 21/02251/FULMAJ dated 19 December 2022 and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule . Preliminary Matters and Background 2. Following the submission of the appeal, the Government published a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The policies relevant to this appeal did not change significant ly and thus it was not necessary to consult Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 the parties. Where necessary, I have had regard to the new Framework in my d ecision. 3. The approved permission sought to deliver 61 apartments. This application was subsequently amended under section 96(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to reduce the number of units to 55. From what I understand, this did not alter the ov erall design of the building, which remained no higher than 3 - storeys. 4. The proposal seeks to increase the number of apartments back to 61 through amendments to the approved drawings. Th e proposal would introduce a fourth storey on one part of the building. The Council refused permission for this on the basis that the changes to the approved scheme would be harmful to local distinctiveness and character . Main Issue s 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 6. The principle of development has already been established and construction is already underway. There is clearly more than a theoretical likelihood that the extant permission would be implemented in full if this appeal were dismissed. This is a very significant material consideration. The outcome of this appeal does not affect the extant permission . As such, it is not necessary for me to consider the principle of development or whether the approved element s remain acceptable . I have therefore limited my consideration to the difference in effect between the approved plans and the proposed revisions. 7. The revised plans would result in the creation of one 4 - storey element on the northern part of the building. The remainder of the building, including its broad design, height, footprint and materials used would not change. The scale and massing of the majority would therefore remain as approved . What is permitted already cons titutes a building that would be highly prominent in the street scene . This would particularly be the case when travelling along Wetherby Road. The addition of a fourth storey would increase this prominence to an extent , although it would make up only a relatively small part of the building overall . From some viewpoints, the change would not be perceived at all. However, even from where it would be more obvious on Wetherby Road, the additional storey would have a relatively small effect overall visual impact on the area. 8. The site is set at a substantially lower level than surrounding buildings . As such, although the fourth storey element would appear taller than 63 Wetherby Road, this would not be by a significant amount. There would also be a reasonable space between No 63 and the four - storey part of the building such that it would not appear as an unduly intensive or imposing structure. While f our storey buildings may not be prevalent in the area, the topography of the area means that th e development would not appear untoward, nor would it compete with buildings farther afield, such as the listed C hurch. This is some distance away and would not be affected by the development. I am therefore Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 satisfied that the alterations sought would comp lement what has been permitted and not stand out as an unduly incongruous of discordant feature. 9. Moreover, the plans do not suggest that the outward appearance of the building would change dramatically from what has been permitted . Part of the building would be taller , but the additional storey would match the detailing of the rest of the building . As such, it would complement what has already been considered acceptable. There would also be a high degree of articulation across the building , both in terms of height and footprint, which would break up the mass of the building , such that it would not appear as a monolithic structure . The variation in materials would also provide a degree of visual interest that would also help break up the structure While some trees may have already been removed, there are conditions requiring the implementation of a landscaping scheme. While this may not completely screen the development, particularly the upper storeys, it would still help to soften the over all impact of the building. 10. Overall, I do not consider the increase in height of part of the building would result in a materially more harmful impact than what has already been permitted. The additional storey would increase the prominence of the building to a degree, but this would be subsumed within the overall impact of what would be a large building in any event. Given what has been approved, t he additional storey would not appear out of place . The changes in levels would ensure the development would n ot appear excessively tall or intrusive . As the revised design s do not differ in terms of materials or general appearance, I also do not consider they would be harmful to local distinctiveness . 11. I am therefore content that the revisions to the plans would not result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, there would be no conflict wi th Harrogate and District Local Plan 2014 - 2035 (2022) Policy H P3 which seeks, am ongst other things, to ensure development protects, enhances or reinforces local characteristics. There would also be no conflict with paragraph 13 5 of the Framework, which includes provision for development to add to the overall quality of the area, be vi sually attractive, and sympathetic to local character. Other Matters 12. The site lies with in the setting of the Grade II listed Grimbald Bridge. It is also within the Knaresborough Conservation Area. The principle of development has already been established a nd t he effect of development considered acceptable. The incre ase in height of part of the building would have no additional impact on the setting of the bridge or the significance of the conservation area. The revised plans would therefore have a neutral e ffect on the heritage assets . This does not weigh against the proposal . 13. T he distance s between buildings would ensure that any increase in h eight would no t have an undue impact on the outlook or privacy of existing dwellings . While the development may be more prominent in views from nearby dwellings, including those on Fountains View, it would not have an overbearing impact on existing properties. There should also be no greater impact in terms of noise or disturbance. T he pr oposed development would not therefore have a materially greater effect on the living conditions of any occupants than the permitted scheme. There should also be no greater impact Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 on highways or highway safety, especially as 61 dwellings were initially per mitted. 14. Any issues relating to the works currently underway , including concerns about health and safety or removal of trees , are outside the scope of the appeal . use of this procedure or their motives for changing t he design have not had any bearing on my decision. Whether or not there is a need to change the design is also not a matter for me to consider. From the evidence before me, the previously refused application for a 4 - storey development differs to what is be fore me and thus does not weigh against this proposal, which I have considered on its own merits. I am also content that the of these matters alter my decision. Conditions 15. By allowing this appeal a new planning permission is created. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that, for clarity, decision notices for the grant of planning permission under S 73 should restate the conditions imposed on earlier permissions that contin ue to have effect, unless they have already been discharged. The Council and appellant have suggested new conditions that seek to reflect those which have already been discharged . It is permissible under S 73 to impose new conditions provide d they do not ma terially alter the development. It is therefore logical for these to replace discharged conditions where they meet the relevant tests. 16. Where I have no information about the status of other conditions imposed on the original planning permission, I shall im pose all those that I consider remain relevant. In the event these have since been discharged, that will be a matter which can be addressed by the parties. 17. I have imposed a condition stipulating the timescales for which development must start. I have amen ded the suggested condition such that it reflects the date of the original permission. A decision made under S73 cannot extend the time period within which a development must start (1) . For certainty, I have imposed a condition establishing the approved pl ans . Here I have used the list provided by the Council (2) . In the interests of highway safety and accessibility , I have re imposed conditions requiring the delivery of the site access , off - site mitigation measures and footpath improvements ( 3,4,5,6) . I have also included new conditions in these respects which reflect the matters already discharged. 18. In the interests of the living conditions of nearby residents and safety, I have imposed a condition requiring adhere nce to the previously agreed Construction Method and Management Statement (7) . For the same reason, I have re imposed a condition requiring the approval and implementation of a Parking Management Strategy (31). In the interests of tree protection, I have re imposed conditions relating to tree protection (8,9). In the interests of flooding , drainage and water management , I have reimposed the conditions relating to f inished floor levels, flood mitigation, avoiding the existing sewer , foul and surface water mit igation measures , the approved drainage strategy and the Flood Evacuation and Management Plan (10 , 11, 12, 13 , 22 , 29 , 30 ) . 19. To ensure issues relating to ground conditions and potential mitigation are addressed I have imposed conditions requiring adherence to the previously Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 agreed Geo - Environmental Report and Remediation Strategy (14, 15, 16). I have reimposed the condition relating to the completion of any measures in the Remediation Strategy (17). 20. In the interests of the living conditions of nearby residents I have reimposed the conditions relating to odour control (18). The appellant has indicated that a discharge of condition application had been made at the time of the appeal. However, I have had no confirmation of the outcome of this and so the original condition is imposed. For the same reasons, I have reimposed the conditions relating to light and noise ( 19, 20). 21. In the interests of biodiversity, I have imposed a condition ensuring adherence t o the previously agreed Construction Environmental Management Plan (21). In the interests of character, appearance and biod iversity, I have reimposed the conditions relating to the approval and implementation of a landscaping scheme (23 , 24 ). Again, I have no information as to whether a pending discharge of condition application has been approved and thus have used the original wording for condition 23 . 22. conditions relating to electric vehi cle charging points and solar panels (25, 26). The latter condition reflects changes previously approved by the Council as a non - material amendment. In the interests of character and appearance, I have reimposed conditions relating to window design (27). F or the same reason, I have imposed a condition requiring adherence to previously agreed details relating to materials (28). 23. Where the suggested conditions from the Council and appellant differ , I have suggested wording . This is bec ause I do not have any detailed information as to what has been approved or not as part of any discharge of condition. I am content, however, that all of the conditions are necessary and meet the relevant tests. Conclusion 24. The proposal accords with the development plan as a whole and thus, f or the reasons given above , I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will gra nt a new planning permission without the disputed condition but substituting others and restating those undisputed conditions that are still subsisting and capable of taking effect. S J Lee INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 Schedule of Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 19 December 2025 . 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following drawings: Location Plan 09999 - P2 - 201 Site Plan 09999 - P2 - 203 Rev B Building Elev ations 09999 - P3 - 331 Floor Plans 1 09999 - P3 - 321 Floor Plans 2 09999 - P3 - 322 Site Sections 09999 - P2 - 214 Rev A Site Sections 09999 - P3 - 312 Landscape Strategy 09999 - P2 - 241 Rev B 3) The development must not be brought into use until the access to the site has been set out and constructed in accordance with the Specification for Housing and Industrial Estate Roads and Private Street Works" published by the local h ighway a uthority and the following requirements unless otherwise approved in writing by the local Highway Authority. The crossing of the highway verge and footway must be constructed in accordance with the approved details to Standard Detail number E7, be a minimum of 5.5 metr es in width, and provide the footway link to the existing footpath as shown on the approved drawing P18017 - 001E. i Any gates or barriers must be erected a minimum distance of 4.8 metres back from the carriageway of the existing highway and must not be able to swing over the existing or proposed highway. ii Provision to prevent surface water from the site/plot discharging onto the existing or proposed highway must be constructed in accordance with the approved details shown on drawing Standard Detail E7 and ma intained thereafter to prevent such discharges. iii The final surfacing of any private access within 6 metres of the public highway must not contain any loose material that is capable of being drawn on to the existing or proposed public highway. iv The existing footway crossing point on Wetherby Road must be upgraded to include tactile crossing guidance, and where the new proposed footpath link joins the existing footpath network, the footway width must be widened to 2 metres. v Measures to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear. All works must accord with the approved details. 4) There must be no access or egress by any vehicles between the highway and the application site until splays are provided giving cle ar visibility of 2.4 metres x 56 metres measured along both channel lines of Wetherby Road from a point measured down the centre line of the access road. Once created, these visibility splays must be maintained clear of any obstruction and retained for the ir intended purpose at all times. Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 5) No part of the development must be brought into use until the vehicle access, parking, manoeuvring and turning areas have been constructed in accordance with the following plans approved under application 23/00197/DISCON unless alternative details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority : Vehicular, Cycle and Pedestrian Access and Parking 09999 - XX - C - PL - 610 - 003 Rev P02; Highways S278 New Entrance GA 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 002 Rev P02; S wept Path Refuse Vehicle 09999 - XX - C - PL - 610 - 004 Rev P01; Swept Path Delivery Vehicle 09999 - XX - C - PL - 610 - 005 Rev P03; Swept Path Fire Tender 09999 - XX - C - PL - 610 - 007 Rev P01. Once created these areas must be maintained clear of any obstruction and retained fo r their intended purpose at all times. 6) The following schemes of off - site highway mitigation measures must be completed as indicated below: 1. Uncontrolled crossing northwest of proposed access. Uncontrolled crossing improvements to include: Widening of d ropped kerbs; Removal of existing tactile paving to the back of footway; Tactile paving to be provided for extent of dropped kerbs; Northern footway to be widened and cleared of debris; Existing 'Reduce Speed now' signage to be relocated outside of proposed footway; Existing road markings to be replenished; Additional 'SLOW' road markings to be provided on approach to existing road hump. 2. Vegetation/ debris within Wetherby Road southe rn footway: Clear vegetation/debris and tidy up the general appearance of the footpath. 3. Substandard tactile paving, poor road surface and worn road markings at Wetherby Road/ Abbey Road junction. Junction improvements to include: Wider dropped kerbs either side of junction; Tactile paving to be provided for extent of dropped kerbs and laid to a depth of 1200mm - Road to be resurfaced where necessary; Road markings to be replenished. 4. Substandard crossing facilities at turning head east of Grimbald Bridge. Crossing facilities to include: Dropped kerbs on either side of the turning head to be located along the desire line; Tactile paving to be provided for extent of dropped kerbs and laid to a depth of 1200mm; Amendments to th e footway on the eastern side of the crossing to improve pedestrian desire line to either northern/ southern KR1. 5. Misleading tactile/ substandard tactile paving arrangements at various uncontrolled crossing points east of Grimbald Bridge. Existing tact ile paving layout to be removed as this is misleading for the visually impaired, and replaced with suitable tactile paving/corduroy hazard Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 warning surface arrangements appropriate for shared cycle track/footway crossings. 6. Construction of the approved f ootpath link and associated infrastructure improvements as shown on plan P21094 - 006A dated 3 May 2022. The above highway improvement works must be carried out using an approved NYCC contractor and be completed prior to the proposed development's first occ upation. An independent Stage 2 Road Safety Audit must be carried out in accordance with GG119. Road Safety Audits or any superseding regulations must be included in the submission and the design proposals must be amended in accordance with the recommenda tions of the submitted Safety Audit prior to the commencement of works on site. A programme for the delivery of that scheme and its interaction with delivery of the other identified schemes must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to construction works commencing on site. Each item of the off - site highway works must be completed in accordance with the following engineering details and programme approved under application 23/00589/DISCON unless alternative details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority : H ighways 278 Extent of Works - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 001 Rev P02 Highways 278 Adoption Plan - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 000 Rev P01 Highways 278 New Entrance GA - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 002 Rev P03 Highways 278 Existing Services - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 003 Rev P07 Highways 278 Crossing Upgrades Sheet 1 of 2 - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 004 Rev P02 Highways 278 Crossing Upgrades Sheet 2 of 2 - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 005 Rev P02 Highways 278 Road Markings, Signs & Sight Lines - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 006 Rev P02 Highways 278 Construction Deta ils - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 010 Rev P02 Services Diversions Report, Adlington, January 2023 Stage 2 Road Safety Audit - 610/2022/155/01 Rev 1, 12 November 2022 Stage 2 Road Safety Audit Designers Response, Adlington, December 2022. 7) Unless alternative detai ls have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority construction of the permitted development must be undertaken in strict accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan Construction Method and Management St atement by Gladman Homes LLP, March 2023. Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 8) Prior to any operations commencing on the site in connection with the development hereby approved (including any demolition work, soil moving, bringing materials onto site, temporary access construction and/or wid ening or any operations involving the use of motorised vehicles or construction machinery), the developer shall implement the agreed specification for root protection area (RPA) and detail (as per FPCR Arboricultural Assessment dated April 2021) fencing in line with the requirements of British Standard BS 5837: 2012 Trees in Relation to Construction - Recommendations, or any subsequent amendments to that document, around the trees or shrubs or planting to be retained, as indicated on the approved plan and f or the entire area as specified in accordance with BS 5837:2012. The developer shall maintain such fences until all development the subject of this permission is completed. 9) The applicant is to retain, throughout the development process, including the prop osed tree planting (as per the approved plans), the arboricultural consultant who is to forward a monthly progress report to the LPA. The progress report is required to demonstrate that the trees are being protected in accordance with the submitted detail, and any approved Method Statement or other documentation, during the course of the development. The retention of the arboricultural consultant will aid in the development process where it applies to trees in all forms eg no dig road, Root Protection Area enforcement and tree planting. 10) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted flood risk assessment (ref SHF.1255.004.HY.R.002.G dated December 2021) and the following mitigation measures it details within section 5: Finished floor levels shall be set no lower than 36.55metres above Ordnance Datum (AOD); There is to be no built development within flood zone 3b and no raising of ground levels within flood zone 3. All excess spoil is to be removed from the floodplain and disposed of appropriately; The development shall be constructed with a floodable basement, the sole purpose of which shall be for the storage of flood flows. The basement is to be built in accordance with drawing Nos 09999 - P2 - 215 & 09999 - P2 - 232, should be designed an d built to drain by gravity, and, is to have a soffit of 35.85mAOD. The basement is also to have a floodable volume of at least 600m3. The basement is to be managed and maintained as per Table 5.4 of document SHF.1255.004.HY.R.005.B so that the full flood storage volume remains available for the lifetime of the development. A detailed management and maintenance plan should be agreed with the LPA prior to occupation of the development. These mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the scheme's timing/ phasing arrangements. The measures detailed above shall be retained and maintained thereafter throughout the lifetime of the development. 11) No building or other obstruction including landsca pe features shall be located over or within: a) 3.5 (three point five) metres either side of the centre line of the public 675 mm diameter sewer i.e. a protected strip width of 7 (seven) metres, that crosses the site; and b) 3 (three) metres either side of the centre line of the public 225 mm diameter sewer i.e. a Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 protected strip width of 6 (six) metres, that crosses the site. If the required stand - off distance is to be achieved via diversion or closure of the sewer, the developer shall submit evidence to t he local planning authority that the diversion or closure has been agreed with the relevant statutory undertaker and that prior to construction in the affected area, the approved works have been undertaken . 12) The site shall be developed with separate systems of drainage for foul and surface water on and off site. The separate systems should extend to the points of discharge to be agreed. 13) There shall be no piped discharge of surface water from the development p rior to the completion of surface water drainage works, details of which will have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority . If discharge to public sewer is proposed, the information shall include, but not be exclusive to: i) Evidenc e that other means of surface water drainage have been properly considered and why they have been discounted; and ii) The means of discharging to the public sewer network at a rate to be agreed by the local planning authority in consultation with the stat utory sewerage undertaker. 14) Unless alternative details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved Phase II Geo - Environmen tal Report SHF.1255.012.GE.R.001.A dated November 2022 by Enzygo Geo Environmental. 15) Unless alternative details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority site remediation shall take place in strict accordance with the land contamination remediation strategy contained in the approved Phase II Geo - Environmental Report SHF.1255.012.GE.R.001.A dated November 2022 by Enzygo Geo Environmental. 16) Land contamination remediation of the site shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the Remediation Strategy approved pursuant to condition 15. In the event that remediation is unable to proceed in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy or contamination not previously considered or identified in either the P reliminary Risk Assessment or the Phase II Intrusive Site Investigation Report is identified or encountered on site, all groundworks in the affected area (save for site investigation works) shall cease immediately and the local planning authority shall be notified in writing within 2 working days. Works shall not recommence until proposed revisions to the Remediation Strategy have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . Remediation of the site shall thereafter be carried o ut in accordance with the approved revised Remediation Strategy. 17) Following completion of any measures identified in the approved Remediation Strategy or any approved revised Remediation Strategy a land contamination Verification Report shall be submitted to the local planning authority . No part of the site shall be brought into use until such time as the remediation measures have been completed for that part of Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 the site in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy or the approved revised Remediatio n Strategy and a Verification Report in respect of those remediation measures has been approved in writing by the local planning authority . Where verification has been submitted and approved in stages for different areas of the whole site, a Final Verifica tion Summary Report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . 18) Prior to the commencement of the external construction of the walls of the development hereby approved a scheme containing full details of arrangements for internal air extraction, odour control, and discharge to atmosphere from commercial cooking operations, including any external ducting and flues, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The works detailed in the appro ved scheme shall be installed in their entirety before the use hereby permitted is commenced. The equipment shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and operated at all times when cooking is being carried out unless otherwise agreed beforehand in writing with the local planning authority . 19) Prior to the first occupation of the development a scheme for the minimisation of the effect of light glare on nearby properties shall be submitted to the local planning authority for written approval. The submitted scheme shall include an isolux diagram showing the predicted luminance in the vertical plane (in lux) at critical locations on the boundary of the site and at adjacent properties. The approved works shall be completed be fore any lighting equipment to which this approval relates to is operated and shall be maintained during such operation for the life of the development. 20) Before the development is first brought into use, all works which form part of the sound attenuation s cheme as specified in the Noise Report, dated April 2021, reference GM10886, Version 004 V1 Final and produced by Wardell Armstrong : a) Shall be completed; and b) Written evidence to demonstrate that the specified noise levels (including the noise design criteria for all mechanical plant and extraction systems) have been achieved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . If it cannot be demonstrated that the noise levels specified in the aforementioned Noise Report hav e been achieved, then a further scheme shall be submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority incorporating further measures to a chieve those noise levels. All works comprised within those further measures shall be completed and writte n evidence to demonstrate that the aforementioned noise levels have been achieved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is first brought into use. 21) Unless alternative details have first been sub mitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority the development hereby permitted must be carried out in strict accordance with the approved Construction Ecological Management Plan Rev A by FPCR dated 23.02.23 and approved under applicatio n 23/00089/DISCON. All subsequent works on site must be undertaken in accordance with the approved CEMP, which must be Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 incorporated as a biodiversity chapter of the wider site Construction Environmental Management Plan. Species - specific enhancements such a s the provision of faunal boxes must be in place prior to the first occupation of the new building. A copy of the Construction Ecological Management Plan must be available on site and accessible to site operatives at all times during construction. 22) Unless alternative details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority the development hereby permitted must be carried out in strict accordance with the approved Drainage Strategy and Calculations by Adlington Retirement Living dated December 2022 and the Sustainable Drainage Management and Maintenance Plan by Adlington Ret irement Living dated December 2022. The flowrate from the site shall be restricted to a maximum flowrate of 3.5 litres per second to public sewer for up to the 1 in 100 year event. A 30% allowance shall be included for climate change effects for the lifeti me of the development. Storage shall be provided to accommodate the minimum 1 in 100 year plus climate change critical storm event. The scheme shall include a detailed maintenance and management regime for the storage facility. No part of the development s hall be brought into use until the development flow restriction works comprising the approved scheme has been completed. The approved maintenance and management scheme shall be implemented throughout the lifetime of the development. 23) A detailed scheme for landscaping, including the planting of trees (in broad accordance with the submitted Tree Mitigation Plan drawing no. 8603 - L - 01 Rev G & 8603 - L - 02 Rev G dated 8 May 2021) and or shrubs and the use of surface materials shall be submitted to the local plannin g authority prior to the commencement of any external construction of the walls of the development hereby approved. The scheme shall specify materials, species, tree and plant sizes, number and planting densities and the timing of the implementation of the scheme, including any earthworks required. The landscape scheme is to be implemented the planting season (October to March) after completion of the permitted development . 24) In the event of failure of any trees or shrubs, planted in accordance with any scheme approved by the local planning authority , to survive for a period of five years from the date of completion of implementation of that scheme, such trees or shrubs shall b e replaced by the developer with such live specimens of such species in such number as may be approved by the local planning authority . 25) Unless alternative details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority the dev elopment hereby permitted must be carried out in strict accordance with the electric vehicle infrastructure strategy and implementation plan as set out in the Electric Vehicle Charge Points Document v2 and the External Works Plan 00000 - XX - C - PL - 610 - 000 Rev P07 approved under application 23/00090/DISCON. The development shall be carried out as approved with charging points installed prior to occupation. 26) Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, a scheme for the installation of the solar panels shall be submitted in writing for the Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 written approval of the local planning authority . The scheme shall include: (a) Details of design and specification of the solar panels; (b) Timing of installation; and (c) Submission of MCS Certificates upon completio n. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. 27) The windows on the permitted development, unless alterative details are submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority , shall have 75mm window re veals. 28) Unless alternative details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority the development shall be constructed in strict accordance with the materials approved under application ZC23/01543/DISCON. 29) Prior to fir st occupation of the development a Flood Evacuation and Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. 30) Notwithstanding det ails as approved by Condition 2, should any further alterations be considered necessary to levels on site, full details of existing and proposed site levels, finished floor levels and any changes to the surrounding landform must be submitted in writing to the local planning authority and approved prior to any such changes taking place. 31) Prior to first occupation of the development a Parking Management Strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The development sha ll be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. Schedule ends.⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
Conclusion 24. The proposal accords with the development plan as a whole and thus, f or the reasons given above , I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will gra nt a new planning permission without the disputed condition but substituting others and restating those undisputed conditions that are still subsisting and capable of taking effect. S J Lee
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3329099 (Peterborough City Council) — 2024-05-02
📍 Peterborough City Council PINS reference: 3329099 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - i nspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 April 2024 by R Gee BA (Hons) Dip TP PGCert UD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/J0540/W/23/3329099 111 Park Road, Peterborough PE1 2TR The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Eastfield Guesthouse Ltd against the decision of Peterborough City Counci l. The application Ref is 23/00882/FUL. The development proposed is described as rear ground floor annex extension to existing hotel to provide 2 additional rooms. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for rear ground floor annex extension to existing hotel to provide 2 additional rooms at 111 Park Road, Peterborough PE1 2TR in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/00882/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached sched ule. Preliminary Matters 2. The appeal site is situated within the Park Conservation Area (CA). I have therefore born in mind the statutory requirements placed upon decision - makers by section 72(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Ac t, 1990 (the Act). 3. Since the submission of the appeal a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in December 2023. Those parts of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have not been amended. As a result, I have not soug ht further submissions on the revised Framework, and I approach. Main Issue s 4. The main issues are : i) the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, with particular regard to whether it would preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Park CA ; and ii) the effect of the proposed development upon the living conditions of existing and future occupiers, with particular regard to amenity space. Appeal Decision APP/J0540/W/23/3329099 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 R easons Character and appearance 5. The existing property is set back from the public highway behind a low wall and an area of hardstanding. The appeal site lies to the rear of the three - storey building and would be positioned on an area of land currently laid to grass, enclosed by close - boarded fenc ing and a relatively high wall. The existing ho tel has previously been extended and altered . The a ppeal site lies within a relatively dense urban area where I observed a number of structures to the rear of buildings . 6. The appeal site lies within the Park CA . This is a relatively large conservation area that covers a predominantly residential area, although I also observed a number of commercial uses, shops, parks and churches. The significance of the CA stems from its layout as a model housing area, including public parks with tree planting common throug hout the CA, contributing to its special character. The Council considers the existing property to be a locally listed building, and therefore a non - designated heritage asset , which contributes positively to the CA . I have no reason to disagree with that v iew . 7. The proposed building would be sub ordinate to the host property . The proposal incorporates a pitched roof that would be reflective of existing built form , particularly the existing single storey rear addition . Furthermore, the proposed external finish would be in - keeping with the existing property. Given the limited scale and design of the proposal the development would not harmfully detract from the existing property. 8. T he proposal would occupy much of the curr ently undeveloped space to the rear of the host property. However, o wing to its siting to the rear o f the existing building the proposal would no t be visible from Park Road . It would also be obscured from view Road by existing built form . As such the proposal would preserve the character and appearance of the CA. 9. For the reasons stated above, I conclude that the proposed development would not have a harmful effect upon the character and appearance of the surrounding area, and would preserve th e character or appearance of the Park C A. Accordingly, the proposal accords with Policy LP16 of the Peterborough Local Plan 2019 (LP) a s the building form, including size, scale, massing, density, details and materials would be in - keeping with its surroundings and would make efficient use of land . The proposal would accord with the Framework insofar as it seeks to ensure design is high - quality and is sympathetic to local character. Living Conditions 10. Local Plan Policy LP17 s tates that new developmen t should not result in an unacceptable impact on the amenity of existing occupier s through the loss of amenity space. It goes on to state that proposals should be designed to ensure the needs of future occupiers are provided for, including communal amenit y space in the case of apartments/flats. T he policy does not include any space standards and is not explicit on the need for amenity space for hotel accommodation. I therefore afford limited weight to the conflict with this policy in the determination of t his appeal. Appeal Decision APP/J0540/W/23/3329099 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 11. The proposed development would occupy the majority of the appeal site . H owever, there would remain some external space around the building that c ould be used for amenity purposes, including seating. In addition, just a short walk from the site I observed areas of publicly accessible green open space. 12. For the reasons stated , the proposed development would not have a harmful impact upon the living conditions of existing and future occupiers, with particular regard to amenity space. I therefore find no conflict with Policy LP17 of the LP in this regard . The proposal would accord with the Framework insofar as it seeks to create places with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. Other Matters 13. The proposed development wo uld be partially within the r oot p rotection a rea of a Cedar and Cherry tree, positioned on neighbouring land . B oth incursions are minor. I am satisfied that , subject to the imposition of a condition for compliance with the Arboricultural Method Statement & Tree Protection detail , contained in the Arboricultural Impact Assessment 1 (AIA) , that the appeal site would be capable of accommodat ing the development without causing material harm to the se trees . 14. It is asserted that the development would result in the loss of vie w from adjacent properties. However, a change of view from a private window is not in itself regarded as a material planning consideration . Nevertheless, I am satisfied that due to the proposed single storey height and the limited scale of development that the proposal would not be harmful to the outlook of the occupiers of neighbouring properties . 15. Further to concerns regarding in sufficient parking th is matter was considered by the Council and did not form part of their reason for r efusal . T he local highway authority do not raise an objection noting the urban location, being well - served by public transport and the availability of nearby public parking. Based on the evidence before me and observations from my site visit, I have no reason to reach a different view. 16. A n additional two bedrooms is unlikely to result in a material increase in noise and disturbance to the detriment of the living conditions of existing occupiers. Conditions 17. In addition to th e standard time limit co ndition , I have imposed a condition that requires the development to accord with the approved plans and AIA . This is necessary in the interest of certainty . A condition requiring the external facing materials to match the existing building is necessary in order to preserve the character and appearance of the area. Conclusion 18. The appeal is allowed. R Gee INSPECTOR 1 BS5837:2012 - Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction. AIA, AMS & TPP in relation to trees at 109 - 111 Park Road, Peterborough p repared by East Midlands Tree Surveys Ltd date: 10/07/2023 Appeal Decision APP/J0540/W/23/3329099 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 Schedule of Conditions 1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permiss ion. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 507SD02 Site Location Plan , 507SK 01 Rev F Proposed Floor Plans , 507SK02 Rev B Proposed Elevations , 507SK03 Rev B Proposed Site Plan , Arboricultural Impact Assessment, Arboricultural Method Statement and Tree Protection Plan and Tree Constraints Plan . 3. The materials to be used in the cons truction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. ***End of Schedule** *⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
14. It is asserted that the development would result in the loss of vie w from adjacent properties. However, a change of view from a private window is not in itself regarded as a material planning consideration . Nevertheless, I am satisfied that due to the proposed single storey height and the limited scale of development that the proposal would not be harmful to the outlook of the occupiers of neighbouring properties . 15. Further to concerns regarding in sufficient parking th is matter was considered by the Council and did not form part of their reason for r efusal . T he local highway authority do not raise an objection noting the urban location, being well - served by public transport and the availability of nearby public parking. Based on the evidence before me and observations from my site visit, I have no reason to reach a different view. 16. A n additional two bedrooms is unlikely to result in a material increase in noise and disturbance to the detriment of the living conditions of existing occupiers. Conclusion 18. The appeal is allowed. R Gee
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3327484 (Rutland County Council) — 2024-05-02
📍 Rutland County Council PINS reference: 3327484 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 16 April 2024 by Nick Bowden BA(Hons) Dip TP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 MAY 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/A2470/W/23/3327484 Glebe Farm, Empingham Road, Tinwell PE9 3UL The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by A Hinch against the decision of Rutland County Council. The application Ref is 2022/1165/FUL. The development proposed is provision of a residential annexe . Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for p rovision of a residential annexe at Glebe Farm, Empingham Road, Tinwell PE9 3UL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 2022/1165/FUL subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matters 2. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was revised in Dec ember 2023. As the changes do not materially affect the main issues in this case, the parties have not been invited to make further comments. Background and Main Issue 3. The proposal is for a single bedroom annexe which is to be occupied by a family member. It is on the site of a former building which had prior approval for conversion to a dwelling under Class Q of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015. T his prior approval lapsed as the building was demolished as opposed to being converted. 4. The proposed annexe is in the same location as a new independent dwelling which was refused permission , and subsequently dismissed at appeal 1 , due to the creation of a new dwelling in the countryside with a dependency on private vehicles. 5. To all intents and purposes, this proposal remains the same as these previous schemes in terms of its form and external appearance. The principal difference b eing that this proposal is for a residential annexe as a new building . 6. The main issue , therefore, is whether the site is a suitable location for a residential annexe and whether it is tantamount to the creation of a new dwelling. 1 Ref 2021/0479/FUL & APP/A2470/W/21/3283970 Appeal Decision APP/A2470/W/23/3327484 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Reasons 7. Policy SP6 of th e Rutland Local Plan Site Allocations and Policies Development Plan Document 2014 (RLP) sets out that extensions to the existing curtilage of a residential property in the countryside will only be permitted if it is necessary to provide adequate levels of amenity for the occupancy of the dwellings and there is no adverse impact on the character of the area or on any adjacent built development or landscape. Policy CS4 of the Rutland Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2011 (RCS) states that development i n the countryside will be strictly limited to that which has an essential need to be located there . 8. The appeal site is near to the existing dwelling at Glebe Farm which itself is set in a rural location amongst a cluster of modern barn buildings. The site for the annexe comprises a small parcel of land containing the remnants of a former building on this site including evidence of some newer footings and groundworks . 9. The proposed annexe is of a modest size and is close to the existing dwelling at Glebe Farm . Whilst it is not attached to it, there is a n association with this dwelling due to this proximity . The accommodation provided is clearly much smaller than that offered at Glebe Farm. 10. Conversely , t he accommodation provides facilities for independent day - to - day living , could be served by a separate a ccess drive and its surroundings easily altered to form a separate unit of accommodation. Indeed, t he history indicates that various attempts have been made to use this former building as residential accommodation , in some form or another, since 2017. 11. Nevertheless, the proposal be for e me is for an annexe and despite the site history, I have no evidence that would allow me to conclude that it would be used in any other manner. A condition can be imposed to secure its ancillary use . If the st ructure is not built or used as proposed, or if there is a material change of use in the future to create a separate dwelling, then a separate grant of planning permission would be required . 12. I t is apparent that there is an extensive residential curtilage to the rear of the dwelling and further extension of it over the site of the proposed annexe is somewhat unwarranted. However, the Inspector , in the recent appeal for an independent dwelling, considered that the proposed dwelling would not be a p rominent feature in the wider landscape due to its relationship with the surrounding buildings and , in that respect , would have a neutral effect on the local rural character . Given this finding, and the visual similarity of this proposal to the previous ly proposed dwelling in all matters excepting its use, I am unable to find otherwise. Therefore, whilst there is a small extension to the residential curtilage, this remains very tightly drawn around the proposed annexe to provide adequate levels of amenity f or the occupancy of the annexe , and I conclude that there would not be any material harm in this regard. 13. I t therefore follows that the proposed development would be a suitable location for a residential annexe and, with a condition, would not be tantamoun t to the creation of a new dwelling. The development thus complies with RLP policy SP6 and RCS policy CS4 . Appeal Decision APP/A2470/W/23/3327484 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 14. In reaching my conclusion I have had regard to the concerns expressed by the Council . This includes reference to the case of Uttlesford DC v SSE & White [1992] where it was considered that, even if the accommodation provided facilities for independent day - to - day living, it would not necessarily become a separate planning unit from the main dwelling. In that case the accommodation gave the occupant the facilities of a self - contained unit although it was intended to function as an annexe in company with the main dwelling. There was no reason in law why such accommodation should consequently become a separa te planning unit from the main dwelling. Other Matters 15. I have been mindful that the accommodation proposed would be for an elderly relative. However, very limited details of why this accommodation is needed for this elderly resident, or the i r care needs h ave been prov id ed. However, as the appeal is to be allowed, I have not considered this any further. Conditions 16. I have imposed the conditions recommended by the Council , with amendments , to comply with the Planning Practice Guidance . 17. I have altered c ondit ion 1 from a proposed two - year time limit to a three - year limit for the commencement of development . This is because no special reasons why the standard three - year limit should not be imposed were provided to me. 18. Condition 2 is imposed for certainty that the development will be carried out in accordance with the approved plans. 19. Given that groundworks at the site appear to have commenced already, albeit implementing a different scheme, I have treated condition 3 as a pre - commencement condition. Accordingly, t he appellant has been consulted on this having regard to S100ZA of the Town and Country Planning Act. 20. Condition 4 ties the occupation of the annexe to the main dwelling at Glebe Farm to avoid the creation of an independent dwelling. Conclusion 21. The proposed development compl ies with the provisions of the development plan and the material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, f or the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed. N ick Bowden INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/A2470/W/23/3327484 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 Schedule of conditions 1. The development shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. 2. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out except in complete accordance with the details shown on the submitted plans: 221155_Location Pla n, Site Plan Scale 1:200, Floor Plans and Elevations Scale 1:100. 3. Notwithstanding the details submitted, full details of all external materials to be used in the construction of the dwellings hereby approved shall be submitted to and be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of any above ground works. The development shall be carried out in accordance with these approved details prior to the annexe being first occupied and thereafter be retained in the approved form. 4. T he ancillary annexe accommodation shall be occupied solely by the members of the household of Glebe Farm, Empingham Road, Tinwell, or their relatives, and shall not be severed from this dwelling or used as a separate and unconnected dwelling. End of Schedu le⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
The development thus complies with RLP policy SP6 and RCS policy CS4 . Appeal Decision APP/A2470/W/23/3327484 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 14. In reaching my conclusion I have had regard to the concerns expressed by the Council . This includes reference to the case of Uttlesford DC v SSE & White [1992] where it was considered that, even if the accommodation provided facilities for independent day - to - day living, it would not necessarily become a separate planning unit from the main dwelling. In that case the accommodation gave the occupant the facilities of a self - contained unit although it was intended to function as an annexe in company with the main dwelling. There was no reason in law why such accommodation should consequently become a separa te planning unit from the main dwelling. Other Matters 15. I have been mindful that the accommodation proposed would be for an elderly relative. However, very limited details of why this accommodation is needed for this elderly resident, or the i r care needs h ave been prov id ed. However, as the appeal is to be allowed, I have not considered this any further. Conditions 16. I have imposed the Conclusion 21. The prop…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3326210 (Eastbourne Borough Council) — 2024-05-02
📍 Eastbourne Borough Council PINS reference: 3326210 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 February 2024 by Jane Smith MA MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/T1410/W/23/3326210 13 Gorringe Road, Eastbourne, East Sussex BN22 8XL The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr Jez and Chris Colville ( Bastille Property Ltd ) against the decision of Eastbourne Borough Council. The application Ref is 220961. The development is change of use from residential care home (C2 use) to 11 bedroom HMO (sui generis use) with associated bin and cycle storage area Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use from residential care home (C2 use) to 11 bedroom HMO (sui generis use) with associated bin and cycle storage area , at 13 Gorringe Road, Eastbourne, East Sussex BN22 8XL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 220961, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matters 2. In the banner heading and decision above , I have used the description given on A ppellant has confirmed was amended from the slightly different wording on the application form. I am satisfied that this accurately describes the development . Although the application form refers to 12 - 13 Gorringe Road, i t is clear from the drawings that th e development is at 13 Gorringe Road only , so I have used this address, as given on the decision notice and appeal form. 3. Use of the building as a house of multiple occupation (HMO) has already commenced and therefore I am considering the appeal retrospectively. 4. The Government published a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) in December 2023. Those parts of the Framework most relevant to this appeal have not been significantly amended. As a result, I consider that there is no requirement for me to seek further submissions on the revised by my taking th is approach. Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the development on living conditions for the occupiers of nearby properties. Appeal Decision APP/T1410/W/23/3326210 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Reasons 6. The appeal site is a substantial residential property , which was used as a nursing home prior to the change of us e now under consideration. The nursing home occupied both 12 and 13 Gorringe Road , which are connected by an infill extension . However, this appeal concerns the use of no. 13 only , since n o . 12 is being converted to three flats under a separate planning permission 1 . 7. The building stands in a row of similar dwellings along one side of Gorringe Road. Like its neighbours, it is elevated above street level, behind a terraced front garden , with a larger garden at the rear. The re are several steps up to the front door and side passage, but the front garden is otherwise enclosed by a brick wall. 8. The property provides 11 bedrooms, each intended for single occupancy. While this is likely to be a higher level of occupation than that of the nearby family dwellings, it is below that of the nursing home which previously occupied the building. Th e previous use included 13 bedrooms within the appeal site and s taff and visitors would also have been pre sent on a regular basis . 9. T he most recent pattern of arrivals and departures may have been moderated by the nature of the care provided , with the nursing home residents being unable to drive . However, there is evidence in letter s of support that the care home involved comings and goings at unsocial hours, which caused disturbance to immediate neighbours . Furthermore, there is no dispute that the property has an established use within Use Class C2 of the Town and Country Planning ( Use Classes) Order 1987 . The range of p ermitted uses within this class would encompass a typical level of activity at least comparable to , and potentially more disruptive than , the intended level of occupation. 10. There is no dispute between the main parties that the building provides suitable accommodation in generous - sized single bedrooms . The A ppellant proposes conditions to prevent short term lets and limit the maximum level of occupation . This would prevent more transient and potentially disruptive forms long term residents , with lifestyles that are likely to be compatible with the surrounding residential area . 11. Interested parties have highlighted i ssues with poor waste management, affecting the surrounding area . The elevated front garden does not easily accommodate bin storage and collection at present. However, the application includes formation of a bin storage area alongside the dwelling, with ramped access to the street, and a weekly managed bin collection s ervice is proposed, to minimise disruption . With those safeguards, which can be secured through planning conditions, adequate facilities would be available to handle waste and recycling. The arrangements would also minimise the need for bins to be placed o n the pavement, obstructing access. 12. Some degree of inter - visibility between gardens is inevitable in a residential area such as this and use of the garden by the occupiers would not be unacceptably intrusive. Like the other dwellings, the property has a v eranda at the front, which could encourage occupiers to linger and talk in the front garden. However, the likely level of social interaction would not cause an 1 Eastbourne Borough Council planning application ref 230049, granted 14 July 2023 Appeal Decision APP/T1410/W/23/3326210 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 unreasonable level of disturbance for nearby residents . In the event of anti - social behaviour , t his would remain subject to other regulatory regimes. 13. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the development would not have an unacceptable effect on living conditions for the occupiers of nearby properties . As such, it does not conflict with releva nt requirements in Policy B2 of the Eastbourne Core Strategy 2013 or Policy HO20 of the Eastbourne Borough Plan 2001 - 2011, adopted 2007. These policies, amongst other things, require that development safeguards the amenity of existing residents , taking int o account issues including noise, general disturbance , cleanliness and odour . 14. There is likewise no conflict with relevant paragraphs in the Framework, including paragraph 180, which requires that new development avoids contributing to unacceptable levels of noise pollution , and paragraph 135 which requires that development should function well and provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users . Other Matters 15. T here is unrestricted parking on Gorringe R oad and no substantive evidence that demand for the available spaces would exceed the likely level if the property remained in C2 use . The site is in an urban location where local services and public transport can be accessed without relying on travel by c ar and cycle storage would be provided . The Council has not alleged any conflict with policies relating to car parking or highway safety and based on the evidence before me I have no reason to reach a different view. 16. The Council indicates that areas at risk of flooding are limited to the lower - lying land adjacent to the site, which would be unaffected. The intended level of occupation would be comparable to the previous use of the property, which would have included la undry, toilet and washing facilities for the nursing home residents. As such there is no substantive evidence that the development would materially increase pressure on existing foul drainage infrastructure. 17. Suitable ar rangements for emergency evacuation a nd fire safety are covered by other regulatory regimes. Similarly , compliance with health and safety regulations during construction is not a matter for this appeal. 18. There is provision within the planning system for the acceptability of unauthorised devel opment to be considered retrospectively on its merits and that is what I have done. The particular circumstances relating to the appeal proposal would be unlikely to be repeated elsewhere , so concerns about a precedent being set for other development are n ot a significant consideration. 19. The proposal would not provide family housing, but it would make a useful contribution to the supply of housing for single people, in an area where there is an acknowledged shortfall in housing land supply. The relevant deve lopment plan policies development should function well and provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users. I have not identified any conflict with the Framework , subject to the imposit ion of suitable planning conditions. 20. On that basis, there are no adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, including the contribution to the supply of housing, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a Appeal Decision APP/T1410/W/23/3326210 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 whole . Therefore , the proposal benefits from the presumption in favour of sustainable development as articulated in paragraph 11d of the Framework . Conditions 21. The Council has suggested a number of conditions which I have considered against advi ce in the Framework and Planning Practice Guidance. As a result, I have amended some of them for consistency and clarity. 22. Although the property is already occupied, the drawings include physical alterations which have not yet been carried out. I have there fore imposed a condition requiring compliance with the approved plans, for clarity . 23. As suggested by both main parties, I have imposed conditions limiting occupancy to no more than 11 people and the minimum stay to three months. Th is is necessary to regula te the likely level of activity and maintain acceptable living conditions. In the context of a property which would be managed as a house of multiple occupation and subject to rel evant licensing requirements, I am satisfied that both conditions are reasonable and enforce able . 24. Both parties suggested a condition to require approval and implementation of a Management Plan. Although there may be some overlap with other regulatory regimes, I agree that this is necessary to ensure that the property is cared for and occupied in a manner which avoids undermining the living conditions of nearby residents. I have therefore imposed a condition to ensure that the required details are submitted, appro ved and implemented , so as to make the development acceptable in planning terms. 25. In this case, there is a strict timetable for compliance because permission is being granted retrospectively, and it is not possible to use a negatively worded condition to s ecure the approval and implementation of the Management Plan before the development takes place. The condition will ensure that the development can be enforced against if the se requirements are not met. In the ue to circumstances beyond the , that is a matter which I would expect the Council to take into account when deciding whether it is expedient to enforce the strict terms of the condition. 26. I have imposed conditions to ensure that the proposed refuse, recycling and cycle storage facilities are implemented in a timely manner and retained in the long term. Th is will support effective waste management in line with the Management Plan and the pro vision of cycle storage to comply with the development plan . In both cases, a strict timetable is provided for implementation to ensure that the required facilities are provided in a timely manner and that compliance can be enforced if the timetable is not met. 27. Although the front garden appeared recently landscaped and well - maintained at the time of my site visit, a landscaping condition is required to ensure that it remains in good condition following construction of the proposed bin storage and collectio n facilities. Confirmation of landscaping and boundary treatments across the site as a whole is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and living conditions for neighbouring residents . I have therefore imposed a condition to secure timely i mplementation of any further hard and soft landscaping , with a deadline to enable enforcement if the timetable is not met . Appeal Decision APP/T1410/W/23/3326210 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 28. T he landlord and occupiers would be required to comply with the Management Plan and the separate HMO licensing regime , so a condition requiring a live - in manager would be unreasonable. Since the site provides adequate facilities for future occupiers, a requirement for additional communal space would also be unnecessary and unreasonable. Conclusion 29. There is no conflict with the development plan subject to the conditions imposed, and no material considerations indicate that a decision should be taken other than in accordance with the development plan. Therefore, f or the reasons given the appeal should be al lowed. Jane Smith INSPECTOR Schedule of Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: 1025.17 R ev A : S ite and B lock P lan 1025.19 : P roposed F loor P lans 2) The HMO rooms hereby approved shall be single occupancy only, with the total number of occupiers at the HMO limited to a maximum of 11. 3) Occupation of any of the HMO rooms hereby permitted shall be limited to a minimum stay of 3 months. 4) Unless within one month of the date of this decision a Management Plan is submitted in writing to the local planning authority for approval, and unless the approved Management P lan is implemented within one month of the local cease and all equipment and materials brought onto the land for the purposes of such use shall be removed until such time as a Ma nagement Plan is approved and implemented. If no Management Plan in accordance with this condition is approved within three months of the date of this decision, the use of the site as an 11 bedroom HMO shall cease and all equipment and materials brought onto the land for the purposes of such use shall be removed until such time as a Management Plan approved by the local planning authority is implemented. The Management Plan required in accordance with this condition shall include details of arrangements for the management of litter and the cleanliness of the site, the maintenance of the building and the management of refuse and recycling storage areas and containers, including measures to ensure that such Appeal Decision APP/T1410/W/23/3326210 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 containers are not stored on the public highway an d are returned promptly to the designated storage areas following refuse or recycling collection. Upon implementation of the approved Management Plan specified in this condition, the site shall be managed in accordance with that Management Plan for the li fetime of the development. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal chal lenge has been finally determined. 5) Notwithstanding what is shown on the approved drawings, within one month of the date of this permission details of enclosed refuse and recycling storage facilities shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Local P lanning Authority. Within two months of approval, th e facilities shall be provided in accordance with the details approved and retained solely for the storage of refuse and recycling for the lifetime of the development. 6) Within one month of the date of this permission, details of secure and covered cycle parking facilities for 11 no. cycles shall be submitted for approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority . Within two months of approval, the facilities shall be provided in accordance with the det ails approved and retained as such for the parking of cycles for the lifetime of the development. 7) Within two months of the date of this permission, details of treatment of all parts of the site not covered by buildings shall be submitted for approval in wr iting by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted d etails shall include: a scaled plan showing all hard and soft landscaping, including vegetation to be retained and proposed planting , details of all hard surfaces , and proposed boundary treatments . The site shall be landscaped strictly in accordance with the approved details in the first planting season following approval. Any new planting that dies, is removed, becomes severely damaged or diseased within five years of planting shall be replaced. Any r ep lacement planting shall be in accordance with the approved details. END⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
In the ue to circumstances beyond the , that is a matter which I would expect the Council to take into account when deciding whether it is expedient to enforce the strict terms of the condition. 26. I have imposed conditions to ensure that the proposed refuse, recycling and cycle storage facilities are implemented in a timely manner and retained in the long term. Th is will support effective waste management in line with the Management Plan and the pro vision of cycle storage to comply with the development plan . In both cases, a strict timetable is provided for implementation to ensure that the required facilities are provided in a timely manner and that compliance can be enforced if the timetable is not met. 27. Although the front garden appeared recently landscaped and well - maintained at the time of my site visit, a landscaping condition is required to ensure that it remains in good condition following construction of the proposed bin storage and collectio n facilities. Confirmation of landscaping and boundary treatments across the site as a whole is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area and living Conclusion 29. There is no conflict with the …
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3324268 (Coventry City Council) — 2024-05-02
📍 Coventry City Council PINS reference: 3324268 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 23 January 2024 by G Sibley MPLAN MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/U4610/W/23/3324268 1 Squires Way, C oventry CV4 7EJ 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 Keung Kwok Yiu Keung against the decision of Coventry City Council. The application Ref is FUL/2022/2993 , dated 21 Octo ber 2022, and was refused by notice dated 16 February 2023 . The development is change of use to 2 cluster flats (9 Bedrooms). Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use to 2 cluster flats (9 Bedrooms) at 1 Squires Way, Coventry CV4 7EJ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref FUL/2022/2993, dated 21 October 202 2 subject to the following conditions : 1) The deve lopment hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plan: Existing and proposed details Project No. 8051 DWG No. 12. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be occupied by no more than 9 permanent residents at any time . Preliminary Matters 2. The decision notice and the appeal form describe the development as the retention of change of use to 2 cluster flats (9 B edrooms) which is different to that on the application form. Given that th is description has been used by both parties within the submitted evidence and because it more accurately describe s the development applied for, I have used this description of development in my decision. However, I of development as this is not a n act of development. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the parties would not be prejudiced by this. 3. The development has already taken place and appears to be in accordance with the plans submitted and therefore I have determined the appeal on this basis. 4. l Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) has been updated. As the updates do not fundamentally alter that part referred to by the parties, it has not been necessary to consult them further. Appeal Decision APP/U4610/W/23/3324268 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Main Issue 5. The main issue is the effect of the development upon the living conditions of the surrounding occupiers with regard to noise and disturbance . Reasons 6. The property has planning permission to be used as a 7 - bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) but the appellant states that the property has since been used as two cluster flats with 9 - bedroom s in total . 7. 1 Squires Way (No 1) is a large, detached dwelling located close to the junction between De Montfor t Way and Squires Way which is a cul - de - sac. T he prevailing character of Squires Way is large, detached houses , however close to the site is a large block of flats as well as a shopping centre. Beyond this the re is the University of Warwick Campus which incorporates a large number of substantially sized buildings . T he site is located in a transitional area where the uses associated with the u niversity begin to dominate the area. It was evident during the site v isit that students travel to and live in the area and taking into consideration the above conclusions , I do not consider the house to be situated within a typical quiet suburban cul - de - sac. 8. The council state that an Article 4 D irection has been introduced which restricts ) . It states that the purpose of the Article 4 D irection is to try and control the s associated with high levels o f multi - occupancy. However, th is development does not introduce a new HMO into the area. 9. The use of the building as a HMO has already been established and as such a certain level of movements from residents and visitors is to be expected and it was determined that the permitted use would not be harmful to the neighbouring occupants . The development adds two bedrooms to the building which allows for two additional people to live there. 10. W hilst the building has not been extended to accommodate these additional rooms, the property is very large, and the internal space shown on the submitted plans is sufficient to provide an appropriate living environment for the occupiers with suitably sized private and shared internal living accom modation. This, alongside the modestly sized garden ensures that the use is not intensive for a property of this size. 11. The comings and goings from a HMO may differ in some respects from a typical family home. However, the building is already a HMO and nei ghbouring occupiers would likely be accustomed to activity associated with that use. Additionally, movements to and from the property would be fleeting with noise only created for a limited time. 12. Given the distance between the front door of No 1 and the n eighbouring detached dwellings and because the house is located at the end of the road, those entering or exiting the house do so a reasonable distance from the neighbouring properties . This would limit the noise and disturbance heard by the neighbouring o ccupants . Two additional vehicles parked nearby could cause some disruption to the neighbouring occupiers, especially if it occurred at night . However, the house is in a residential area where vehicles coming and going is likely to be a common occurrence. Appeal Decision APP/U4610/W/23/3324268 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 13. Even if the occupiers of the HMO worked or socialised during the evenings with comings and goings occurring at night, this does not necessarily infer that there would be an unacceptable impact in terms of noise and disturbance to oth er nearby residents from both pedestrians and vehicles visiting the property . The issues raised are not predicated on the use of the building as a HMO but rather a matter of individual behaviour. 14. There was a large bin storage area to the front of the dwel ling and the front of the building was well maintained, and no rubbish or waste was left outside of the property or the bin storage area. Whilst my site visit was only a snapshot in time, given the size of this bin storage area, facilities have been provid ed for the proper management of waste for the property. The HMO Enforcement Team also noted that within 5 years the council had received no complaints regarding waste management at this property. Whether or not this is suitably maintained is a matter that relates to the individual behaviour of those living in the property rather than the building being used as a HMO. 15. Policy AC3 of the Coventry Local Plan (LP) requires the provision of car parking to be assessed on the basis of the Parking Standards set out in Appendix 5 of the LP. The proposal would add 2 additional bedrooms which would require a maximum of 2 additional on - site parking spaces. However, the Parking Standards does recognise that in exceptional circumstances there may be occasions when it coul d be appropriate to have a lower or higher level of parking depending on the specific details of the application. 16. The HMO was permitted with space for 2 cars to be parked off the street. I am mindful that the Local Highway Authority has raised no objecti ons to the development. A Parking Survey was submitted with the appeal which identified th e parking capacity in the area and found there was capacity locally to accommodate the needs of the occupiers. Additionally, it identified that the site was located a short distance from the university campus with good walking and bus routes nearby. G iven the intended use and the sustainable location of the site it appears unlikely that the occupiers would be highly reliant on private car use. 17. There are also parking r estrictions at specific times on the surrounding roads. During my site visit there were very few cars parked on the surrounding road s and whilst this was a snapshot in time it is evident that the parking restrictions we re effective, and this view is supported by the Parking Survey . The parking restrictions a re generally during working hours and outside of these hours when the occupiers would be more likely to be at home and need to park a vehicle there would be sufficient parking spa ces close to the site . As a result, the occupiers would be able to park nearby without causing disruption to the surrounding occupants. 18. Consequently, in view of the scale of development and the evidence before me, I consider that the extra demand for on - s treet parking generated by the development is relatively small in the context of the overall supply and availability of parking in the area. Therefore, I consider that the effect is likely to be only marginal and certainly not severe, the test set out in p aragraph 1 1 5 of the Framework for preventing development on highway grounds. Accordingly, I am satisfied that this provides the exceptional circumstances to have a lower level of parking in this instance. Appeal Decision APP/U4610/W/23/3324268 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 19. Several appeal decisions have been referred to by both parties. The appeal sites I have limited information about each of those schemes, but the size and location of a property can have a substantive effect upon the impact of a sch eme . Furthermore, each case must be assessed on its own merits. 20. Therefore, the development does not harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. Consequently , the development accords with Polic ies H1 0 , H11, DE1 and AC3 of the LP. These policies seek, amongst other matters, to ensure th at H do not materially harm the amenities of occupiers of nearby properties (including the provision of suitable parking provisions). In addition, it would accord with the Framework that development should seek to create places that promote health and well - bein g, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users (paragraph 135) and does not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety (paragraph 115) . Conditions 21. The development has already taken place and as such the statutory commencement cond ition is not necessary. However, a condition requiring the development is carried out in accordance with the plans is necessary in the interest of certainty. 22. A condition restricting the number of occupiers is necessary in the interest of the living conditi ons of the occup ants of the property as well as the neighbouring occupiers. 23. A condition to provide cycle parking facilities is not necessary as this has already been provided in the garden as shown on the existing plans for the site . 24. Substantive evidence has not been provided to identify that the site is in an area where air quality is an issue that would necessitate a condition controlling the type of boiler tha t should be installed. Accordingly, a condition doing so would not be nece ssary. 25. The Planning Practice Guidance states that decisions should avoid duplication of regulations from other regimes. E lectric vehicle charging points are now part of the updated Building Regulations approval and as such it is not necessary to include a condition requiring them . Conclusion 26. The development accord s with the development plan as a whole and the other material considerations do not indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with it. Therefore, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. G Sibley INSPECTOR⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
Accordingly, I am satisfied that this provides the exceptional circumstances to have a lower level of parking in this instance. Appeal Decision APP/U4610/W/23/3324268 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 19. Several appeal decisions have been referred to by both parties. The appeal sites I have limited information about each of those schemes, but the size and location of a property can have a substantive effect upon the impact of a sch eme . Furthermore, each case must be assessed on its own merits. 20. Therefore, the development does not harm the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. Consequently , the development accords with Polic ies H1 0 , H11, DE1 and AC3 of the LP. These policies seek, amongst other matters, to ensure th at H do not materially harm the amenities of occupiers of nearby properties (including the provision of suitable parking provisions). In addition, it would accord with the Framework that development should seek to create places that promote health and well - bein g, with a high standard of amenity for existing and future users (paragraph 135) and does not result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety (paragraph 115) . Conclusion 26. …
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3332577 (Crawley Borough Council) — 2024-03-18
📍 Crawley Borough Council PINS reference: 3332577 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 961 Appeal Decision Site visit made on 1 1 March 2024 by J Reid BA(Hons) BArch(Hons) RIBA an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 March 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/Q3820/Z/23/3332577 Three Bridge s Football Club, Jubilee Walk, Three Bridges, Crawley, West Sussex RH10 1LQ The appeal is made under Regulation 17 of T he Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007 (as amended) (the Regulations ) against a refusal to g rant express consent . The appeal is made by Three Bridges Football Club against the decision of Crawley Borough Council. The application Ref is CR/2022/0548/ADV. The advertisement is illumin ed and non static advertisement display board . Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and express consent is granted for the display of the illumin at ed and non static advertisement display board at Three Bridges Football Club, Jubilee Walk, Three Bridges, Crawley, West Sussex RH10 1LQ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref CR/2022/0548/ADV , dated 24 August 2022 . The consent is for five years from the date of this decision and is subject to the five standard conditions set out in Sched ule 2 of the Regulations and the following additional conditions: 1) The intensity of the illumination of the advertisement permitted by this consent shall be no greater th a n 300 cd / m 2 during the hours of darkness and shall be no greater than 5 , 00 0 cd / m 2 during the hours of daylight . 2) Any change to the advertisement displayed shall be instantaneous and the advertisement shall not display any moving image. 3) The advertisement shall not ch ange more than once in every 5 seconds . Preliminary matter and main i ssue 2. The description in the banner heading above has been taken from the application form, but the typo in that description ha s been amend ed in the Decision for clarity. 3. The main issue is the effect that the advertisement has on the character and appearan ce of the surrounding area , and thus, on amenity . Reasons 4. The appeal site is situated on the roughly north west side of the busy 3 lane Haslett Avenue East at the back of the clubhouse by the boundary with the road . T he site and the adjoining land controlled by the appellant, which includes the clubhouse and the football pitch , adjoins Jubilee Fields to roughly north east and a cricket ground to roughly north west and west , and it is Appeal Decision APP/Q3820/Z/23/3332577 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 opposite a mainly commercial and industrial area in cluding the Stephenson Way industrial units and some mature trees . 5. The a dvertisement (sign ) , which is a little over 5 m tall , includes 2 roughly 6 m 2 landscape orientated screens mounted on a metal framework . So, each screen can be readily seen by road and pavement users travelling in either direction along Haslett Avenue East . The various advertisements displayed do not include moving images , but they change instantaneously every 10 seconds. 6. The appeal sign is sited well away from the banner signs on the gable ends of the clubhouse , and it is largely screened by the building from the mostly open land within and beyond the football ground . T here are no other illuminated signs on the same side of the road close by . Howev er, the appeal sign is seen in the same views as the floodlights by the pitch, the street furniture , the and lengthy back , and the tall lengthy boundary fence by the road . So , the interest provided by the appeal sign makes a positive contribution to the street scene on the north west side of Haslett Avenue East. Due to the curve in the road, the appeal sign is seen against a mainly commercial backdrop in the partly leafy views in both directions along the road . So , whilst t he varied advertisements displayed are relatively small features in most views , the ir changing colours and content provide welcome vitality in the views in both directions along the road , which is important to the character of the commercial and industrial area close by . So, the sympathetically sited appeal sign respect s and reflect s the character and appearance of the urban loc ality. 7. Regardi ng the content of the displays , the previous consent , ref CR/2021/0424/ADV dated 23 September 2021 , was granted subject to the same conditions that the Council has suggested in th is appeal, with one minor exception which I shall deal with later. by the previous consent could have football paraphernalia , and a rang e of graphics relating to fixtures, designed, as with all advertisements photographs , to catch the eyes of passers - by. So, t he effect of t h os e displays c ould be about the same as the effect o f the displays in th is app eal , which I have found to be acceptable. Moreover, because it would not be necessary to control the subject matter in the display s in this case to , say, protect the street scene in Haslett Avenue East or the character and appearance of the area , the content of the advertisements display ed could not reasonably be controlled by condition. 8. F or reasons including that the appeal sign is not sited within and does not overhang the public highway , the Council ha s not raised concerns about public safety , an d I agree. 9. Therefore, I consider that the advertisement does not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area , and thus, it does not harm amenity . It also satisfies Policy CH3 of the Crawley Boroug h Local Plan 2015 - 2030 which seeks high quality design and respect for context , guidance in the Crawley Borough Council Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document, and the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) which seeks well - designed places. 10. As the appeal sign is acceptable, consent should be granted subject to the imposition of suitable conditions. Appeal Decision APP/Q3820/Z/23/3332577 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 Conditions 11. - worded as necessary in the light of Framework paragraph 5 6 and Planning Practice Guidance . T he conditions to control the level of ill umination, the way in which displays change and to prevent m oving images , and the frequency with which the displays change , are necessary in the interests of highway safety in Haslett Avenue East . However, there appears to be a typo in the daylight hours value in the 1 , because it is i nconsistent with condition 2 of the previous consent , response , and the specification on p lan 3832a , so the suggested daylight hours value has been amended . Conclusion 12. For the reasons given, the appeal should be allowed . J Reid INSPECTOR⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
8. F or reasons including that the appeal sign is not sited within and does not overhang the public highway , the Council ha s not raised concerns about public safety , an d I agree. 9. Therefore, I consider that the advertisement does not harm the character and appearance of the surrounding area , and thus, it does not harm amenity . It also satisfies Policy CH3 of the Crawley Boroug h Local Plan 2015 - 2030 which seeks high quality design and respect for context , guidance in the Crawley Borough Council Urban Design Supplementary Planning Document, and the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) which seeks well - designed places. 10. As the appeal sign is acceptable, consent should be granted subject to the imposition of suitable conditions. Appeal Decision APP/Q3820/Z/23/3332577 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 Conditions 11. - worded as necessary in the light of Framework paragraph 5 6 and Planning Practice Guidance . T he Conclusion 12. For the reasons given, the appeal should be allowed . J Reid
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3323328 (Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council) — 2024-05-02
📍 Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council PINS reference: 3323328 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 February 2024 by Rebecca McAndrew, BA Hons, MSc, PG Dip Urban Design, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02.05.2024 Appeal Ref: APP/H1705/W/23/3323328 West View Farm, Baughurst Road, Baughurst RG26 5LL 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 and Mrs Giles against the decision of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. The application Ref 21/03332/FUL, dated 22 October 2021, was refused by notice dated 17 April 2023. The development proposed is the erection of 3 no. detached dwellings with garages, parking and associate d landscaping following the demolition of existing stables/barn. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of 3 no. detached dwellings with garages, parking and associated landscaping following the demolition of existing stables/barn at West View Farm, Baughurst Road, Baughurst RG26 5LL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/03332/FUL, dated 22 October 2021, subject to the attached schedule of conditions. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development for the proposals changed within the course of the planning application as the appellants amended the scheme. I have therefore taken the description of development in the banner above from the 3. The Government published on 19 December 2023 a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst I have had regard to the revised national policy as a material consideration, planning decisions must still be made in accordance w ith the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, the issues most relevant to the appeal remain unaffected by the revisions to the Framework. I am therefore satisfied that there is no requirement to seek further submissions on the revised Framework, and that no party would be disadvantaged by such a course of action. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/23/3323328 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Reasons 5. The site is located within the countryside, as defined by the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 - 2029 (2016) (LP). It includes a variety of equestrian structures and facilities, associated with the adjacent West View Farm. A number of residential properties sit between the appeal site and Baug hurst Road. 6. The appeal scheme proposes large, detached houses within sizeable plots, which reflect s the general character of Baughurst Road. This layout would retain a good level of space around the homes. As such, the dwellings would comfortably sit with in the site and would not appear cramped or represent overdevelopment. 7. Whilst Baughurst Road is predominantly a ribbon settlement, I noted on my site visit that there are parts where there is a less linear pattern of development. This includes West View F arm itself. The proposed development would in - fill an area between neighbouring Manor Farm House and land where a new dwelling has recently been allowed on appeal, although this consent has not yet been implemented (20/00578/FUL). As such , locating the p roposed linear development to the rear of existing properties would not be at odds with the overall existing development pattern. 8. I recognise that the scheme would introduce dwellings and associated residential paraphernalia onto land beyond the existing r esidential area of Baughurst Road. However, this is a brownfield site where there are already built structures. Also, the proposed curtilages would not extend beyond the footprint of the existing stables. Consequently, the countryside adjoining the site would remain untouched and open. In addition, the proposed boundary planting would help soften the proposed development within the wider rural landscape. 9. Taking all the above into account, the proposals would not have a significant urbanising impact and would not unacceptably harm the rural character and appearance of the wider area. 10. The proposal therefore meets the requirements of the Framework, Policies SS6, EM1 and EM10 of the LP, the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2018) and the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document (2018). Taken together these require residential development on brownfield sites in the open countryside to be high quality, not visually intrusive within the landscape and to positive ly contribute to the sense of place and local distinctiveness. Other Matters 11. I have considered several issues raised by local residents. I note comments regarding highway safety, traffic generation from the proposed development, the effect of light pollution on wildlife, loss of privacy to existing properties, lack of local facilities to support additiona l residents and the fact that the site is within an Emergency Planning Zone. However, these matters are not contested by the Council and therefore, in my judgement, none of this is of sufficient weight to alter the balance of considerations in this appeal . Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/23/3323328 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 Conditions 12. considered these in light of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and the tests set out in the Framework. For clarity and to ensure compliance with the tests, I have amen ded some of the suggested wording. 13. In addition to the standard time limit condition (condition No 1), I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans as this provides certainty (2). 14. I have includ ed a condition requiring details of external materials to be approved by the Council, prior to commencement. This is to ensure the new dwellings properly reflect the character and appearance of the area (3). For the same reason, I have attached a conditio n requiring details of hard and soft landscaping (4). 15. To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers during construction of the development, construction hours and hours for deliveries have been limited (5 and 6). For the same reasons, a Construction Method Statement must be submitted to and be approved by the Council prior to commencement (7). 16. I have attached a condition regarding water efficiency to ensure that the development delivers a level of sustainable water use (8). 17. A c ondition requiring bin stores to be provided is necessary to ensure convenience of arrangements for refuse and recycling collection and to ensure that no obstruction is caused on the adjoining highway (9). 18. Secure cycle storage is required to encourage acti ve travel (10). In the interests of highway safety, a condition is imposed to ensure appropriate carparking and turning facilities are provided at the site (11). 19. included condition s requiring the risks posed by contamination to be properly addressed as part of the development (12 - 14). 20. I have restricted certain permitted development rights relating to ancillary development within the curtilage of the new dwellings. This will mean suf ficient controls are in place to help ensure that the proposal continues to respect the rural character and appearance of the area (15). 21. provide a net gain for biodiversity, I have attached a condition requiring a Biodiversity Enhancement and Management Plan (16). 22. The Council originally proposed a condition to secure accessible housing standards in one of the three dwellings. It indicates that this is to comply with LP Policy CN3. This requirement would significantly exceed the policy requirement for 15% accessible and adaptable homes be secured within developments. In addition, the reasoned justification recognises that this requirement may not be appropriate for a development of 3 or less units. In Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/23/3323328 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 view of this, such a condition would not be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Given that it would not pass the tests for conditions set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework, I have not imposed it. Conclu sion 23. I conclude that the proposal would accord with the development plan and there are no material considerations that would indicate that the appeal should be dismissed. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is allowed. INSPECTOR Conditions Schedule 1. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: BB_01 Rev A - Location and Block Plan, BB_02 Rev A - Plot 1 Plans and Elevations, BB_03 Rev A - Plot 2 Plans and Elevations, BB_04 Rev A - Plot 3 Plans and Elevations 3. No development above damp proof course shall commence until details / samples of the materials to be used in the construc tion of the external surfaces of the external walls and roofs of the dwellings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details samples . 4. Notwithstanding the approved plans, no development above damp proof course shall commence until there shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a scheme for soft and hard landscaping. The scheme shall include in dications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, identify those to be retained and set out measures for their protection throughout the course of development. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping s hall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the devel opment die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. 5. Works relating to construction, including demolition works or other preparatory works, shall take place o nly between 07:30 and 18:00 on Monday to Friday, 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays. 6. Deliveries or collections of construction materials or plant and machinery shall be taken at or des patched from the site only between 07:30 to 18:00 Monday to Friday , 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays. Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/23/3323328 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 7. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Cons truction Method Statement (CMS) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CMS shall include details of: a) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; and, b) A traffic management plan, t o include a strategy for traffic management along the public right of way, which shall involve the erection of signs warning drivers of the presence of pedestrians and the need to give way, the implementation of a low - speed limit, and the use of banksmen. The approved CMS shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development. 8. Prior to the first occupation of the development, a Construction Statement detailing how the new homes shall meet a water efficiency standard of 110 litres or les s per person per day has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, unless a demonstration shows that this requirement for sustainable water use cannot be achieved on technical or viability grounds. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 9. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until refuse and recycling storage has been provided in connection with the respective dwelling, in accordance with details shown on drawing no. BB_01 Rev A . The refuse and recycling storage shall be maintaine d in perpetuity. 10. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until secure cycle storage facilities have been provided to serve the respective dwelling in accordance with details with details shown on drawing no. BB_01 Rev A . The cycle storage facilitie s shall be maintained in perpetuity. 11. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the provision for the parking and turning of vehicles, including garages, to serve that dwelling have been made in accordance Drawing no. BB_01 Rev A. Thereafter, the y shall be maintained for such purpose in perpetuity. 12. No works pursuant to this permission shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: (a) a desk top study carried out by a competent person doc umenting all the previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land in accordance with national guidance; (b) if deemed necessary by the Local Planning Authority, a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and inc orporating chemical and gas analysis identified as being appropriate by the desk study; (c) if deemed necessary by the Local Planning Authority, a detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be undertaken to avoid risk from contaminants/or gases wh en the site is developed. The scheme must include a timetable of works and site management procedures and the nomination of a competent person to oversee the implementation of the works, together with details of future monitoring and maintenance. The sche me must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and if necessary, proposals for future maintenance and monitoring. Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/23/3323328 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 If during any works contamination is encountered which has not be en previously identified, it should be reported immediately to the Local Planning Authority. The additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme, agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, together with a ti metable for implementation. The approved remediation scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 13. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until a verification report by a competent person (as approved under condition 12 (c)) showing that any remediation required and approved under condition 12 (c) has been fully implemented in accordance with the approved details has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Unless otherwise specified, the verification rep ort shall include: (a) as - built drawings of the implemented scheme; (b) photographs of the remediation works in progress; and (c) certificates demonstrating that imported materials and or any materials left in situ on the site are free of contamination. Th e development shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the details of future monitoring and maintenance approved under condition 7(c). 14. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until there has been submitted to and approved by the Lo cal Planning Authority certificates demonstrating that a) sufficient sampling of imported material has taken place and b) the imported material is free from unacceptable levels of contamination. Sampling should take place in situ at a frequency of 1 per 10 0m3. 15. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re - enacting that Order with or without modification), no building, structure or other alteratio n permitted by Classes A to F of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Order shall be erected on the application site without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority. 16. Prior to the commencement of development, a Biodiversity Enhancement & Managem ent Plan (BEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall deliver a minimum of 0.29 Habitat Units and 0.66 Hedgerow Units as stipulated in the Biodiversity Technical Note on Biodiversity Impact Calculatio ns by HAD dated 13/10/2022. The BEMP will include the results of the provided Biodiversity Metric and the following: a) Description and evaluation of features to be managed and enhanced b) Extent and location/area of proposed enhancement works on appropria te scale maps and plans to include species/faunal enhancement measures c) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management d) Aims and Objectives of management e) Appropriate management Actions for achieving Aims and Objectives Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/23/3323328 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 f) An annual work programme (to cover an initial 5 - year period) g) Details of the specialist ecological management body or organisation responsible for responsible for implementation of the Plan h) For each of the first 5 years of the Plan, a pr ogress report sent to the LPA reporting on progress of the annual work programme and confirmation of required Actions for the next 12 - month period i) The Plan will be reviewed and updated every 5 years and implemented for perpetuity The Plan shall include details of the legal and funding mechanisms by which the long - term implementation of the Plan will be secured by the developer with the specialist ecological management body or organisation responsible for its delivery. The Plan shall also set out (where t he results from the monitoring show that the Aims and Objectives of the BEMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the Objectives of the originally appr oved Plan. The approved Plan will be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
⚖️ Citation note: When using these passages in your own appeal statement, cite each by the PINS appeal reference (visible in the title) and quote sparingly. Inspector decisions are public — attribution is the right courtesy and gives your statement gravitas. The verbatim passages above are the strongest form of precedent you can deploy.
📊 Data sources & freshness
Use this when preparing your appeal statement — the verbatim Inspector reasoning is the strongest precedent you can deploy.
- PINS plain_text (mined daily) ↗
Inspector decisions extracted from PINS Casework Portal PDFs. Filter "Outcome: Allowed" + theme keyword match. - Inspector Reasoning Extractor
Pulls Main Issue + Conclusion sections per PINS templated structure. Shared with similar_refusals.php via includes/inspector_reasoning.php.