🏆 Winning Arguments
Real PINS Inspector reasoning from appeals where refusals on Design 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 Design 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 3332713 (Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area *) — 2024-05-02
📍 Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area * PINS reference: 3332713 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 March 2024 by A Hickey MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 Langlands, Chivery , Aston Clinton , Buckinghamshire HP23 6LD 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 Liam Bond against the decision of Buckinghamshire Council - North Area (Aylesbury). The application Ref is 23/00439/APP. The development proposed is d emolition of existing dwelling and site buildings, erection of replacement dwelling house with associated infrastructure, landscaping and ecological enhancement works. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing dwelling and site buildings, erection of replacement dwelling house with associated infrastructure, landscaping and ecological enhancement works at Langla nds, Chivery, Aston Clinton, Buckinghamshire HP23 6LD in accordance with the terms of the application , Ref is 23/00439/APP , subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matters 2. I have taken the appeal site address from the decision notic e as it most accurately reflects the site location. 3. Since the lodging of the appeal, a revised National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) has been published. This has not raised any new matters which are determinative in this appeal. 4. On 22 November 2023, all designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty designation and policy status of AONBs are unchanged. I have accordingly referred to the Chilterns AONB as the Chilterns National Landscape (CNL) in my decision. 5. provided in relation to biodiversity 1 . While not before the Council at the time of their decision, they were provided at the outset of the a ppeal. As such, the Council and other parties have had opportunity to comment on them and would not be prejudiced by my taking them into account in my reasoning. 1 Biodiversity Net Gain Report: dated September 2023, prepared by ecology by design. Biodiversity Metric. Ecological Impact Assessment (non - EIA): dated October 2023, Prepared by ecology by design. Existing & Proposed Hard Surface (Stage 3) Rev 3 plan: dated 03 September 2023. Ancient Woodland letter: dated November 2023, prepared by Ecology by Design and Landscape & Ecology Management summary: 15 dated September 2023, prepared by SEED landscape design ltd. Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 6. A completed and signed Unilateral Undertaking (UU) was also submitted s decision notice being issued. I return to this later. Main Issue s 7. The main issues are: whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the development plan and the Framework; the effects of the proposal upon biodiversity , including bats and trees ; and w he ther the proposal would provide a biodiversity net gain . Reasons 8. The appeal site is situated in the Metropolitan Green Belt. The proposed development would remove the existing dwelling, nearby outbuildings, and areas of hardstanding. A replacement part single part two - storey dwelling set partially below ground would then be erected . The scheme would also see a realigned driveway with a parking area and landsc aping. 9. Policy S4 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan ( V ALP ) states, amongst other things, that within the Green Belt , land will be protected from inappropriate development in accordance with national policy. Policy S4 a llows for some small - scale developme nt subject to a closed number of exceptions and providing that it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. Of relevance to the appeal scheme are exceptions d. and f. 10. The Framework identi fies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Development within the Green Belt is inappropriate, with certain exceptions that are set out in Framework paragraphs 154 and 15 5 . It goes on to state that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The main parties draw my attention to exceptions listed in Paragraph 1 54 at d) and g) , and I find these to be the most relevant for the purposes of this appeal. 11. E xception d) of the Framework relates to the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. The Framewor k does not provide a definition of what constitutes a materially larger replacement building. 12. V ALP Policy S4 at e xception d. supports the replacement of existing buildings in the Green Belt by new buildings that are not significantly larger in volume, nor mally by no more than 25 - 30% as measured externally of the original building (as it was first built or stood on 1 July 1948) . There is no substantive evidence before me that the host dwelling has been extended , and I have considered it to be as it was firs t built for the purposes of Policy S4 . 13. The supporting text to V ALP Policy S4 exclud es sheds and outbuildings being taken into account. While noting the wording of the Framework, the word building should not be read as excluding more than one building, providing as a matter of planning judgment , the buildings on site can sensibly be considered together in comparison with what is proposed to replace them. Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 14. In this regard, given the outbuildings are close by and used in connection with the host d welling, I see no reason why they should not be considered for the purposes of exception d. G iven the more restrictive nature of Policy S 4 , its supporting text , and in these particular circumstances , it is not wholly consistent with the Framework , only mod erate weight can be applied to it and the approach of the Framework is to be preferred. 15. I also note the appeal decisions referred to by the main parties involving the incorporation of basement s and the consideration of being materially larger. As a matter of planning judgment, the incorporation of a basement is likely to be a material consideration and for the avoidance of doubt I have taken it into account in reaching my decision. 16. The Council acknowledges that , as a whole the scheme would result in an overall reduction in footprint and volume when taking into account all ancillary buildings on site . Nonetheless, the Council consider the replacement dwelling would be materially larger than the dwelling it replaces. 17. While mathematical calculations are not definitive in determining whether a replacement building would be materially larger, they do provide an indication of the overall scale of development. In this instance, the replacement dwelling would consolidate built dev elopment across the site , reducing the footprint of buildings on site . The proposed dwelling despite being set over two - floor s would be of a modest scale and would not be close to any boundary of the appeal site and would be partially built into the ground on the slope . W hile increasing the height of development onsite it would not result in a significantly more prominent building on the land , and the replacement dwelling would not be disproportionate in size having regard to the size of the appeal site. The replacement dwelling would consequently not be materially larger than the one it replaces. 18. No definition of small - scale development for the purposes of V ALP Policy S4 is before me. I see no reason why it should not be co nsidered small - scale. Additionally, the exclu sion of sheds and outbuildings for volume increases is part of the supporting text acting as interpretative guidance to Policy S4 , but is not a part of the policy itself, and it therefore carries less weight. In any event , V ALP Policy S4 supports development, in the Green Belt, in accordance with national policy . T he compliance with Policy S4 as a whole outweighs what I consider to be a minor conflict in terms of including sheds and outbuildings , contrary to the guidance contained within paragraph 3.35 of the V ALP . 19. In reaching the above conclusion, I have had re on V ALP Policy S4 containing . However, it also does not include an at the end of each criterion. As the Council have identified , Policy S4 criteria are a more succinct version of very similar criteria in the Framework , which have not fundame ntally changed through subsequent revisions . The Framework only requires development to comply with one listed exception to not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt . Given the thrust of Policy S4 is to protect the Green Belt in accordance with na tional policy , i see no reason, in this instance, why compliance must also be achieved with an additional criterion . Albeit , I accept there may be other instances where compliance with additional criteria could be re quired. 20. For the reasons above, the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and would therefore not cause Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 harm to it. It wo uld also comply with the overall aims of V ALP Policy S4 in so far as it relates to al lowing small scale development whilst protecting the Green Belt in accordance with national policy. Moreover, since the proposal would not result in inappropriate development in the Green Belt there is no need for me to consider the impact on openness or w hether very special circumstances exist. Biodiversity 21. During my site visit , I noted that the appeal site had been cleared of some areas of vegetation and trees but was largely reflective of the plans before me . I also observed what appeared to be more rec ent footing s that , from the evidence presented , relate to an extant permission 2 (extant consent) on the site for a replacement dwelling . The appeal site and buildings are also within close proximity to an area of ancient woodland . 22. VALP Policy NE8 tree and woodland resource . It goes on to note d evelopment that would lead to an individual or cumulative significant adverse impact on ancient woodland or ancient trees will be refused unless except ional circumstances can be demonstrated that the impacts to the site are clearly outweighed by the benefits of the development. Given the proximity of the site to the ancient woodland a minimum of 50m between the ancient woodland and any built development should be retained . 23. Polic ies EN1 and EN2 of the Aston Clinton Neighbourhood Plan (ACN P), amongst other things, seek to safeguard and avoid adverse impacts on protected natural habitats and species. T he Framework emphasises the importance of natural habitats and biodiversity and lays special emphasis on protecting irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) 3 also provides advice on appropriate buffer zones. 24. While acknowledging in relation exceptional footnote 67 of the Framework states not a closed list. In my view, it is there to assist the decisio n maker, who must have regard to a number of considerations. Moreover , whilst accept ing that both local and national policy have been updated since the extant consent was granted permission , it never the less results in a fallback position that must be given due consideration. 25. The proposed dwelling would be set back further from the ancient woodland than the extant consent for a dwelling on site . I t would include a substantial reduction in hard standing and allow for the incorporation of more native plant s pecies . B ased on th e evidence before me and my observation s on site it is highly likely should the appeal fail, the extant consent will be progressed to completion. As such, t he adverse effects would be substantially more harmful to the nearby ancient woodland than the proposed scheme. I ther e fore find that exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated as required in Policy N8 of the VALP. 26. In reaching the above conclusion , I have had regard to the re cent Tree Protection Order (ref: 23/00026/TPO). However, there is no substantive 2 Ref: 19/0 0842/APP 3 Ancient woodland, ancient trees and veteran trees: advice for making planning decisions : January 2022 Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 evidence to demonstrate scheme. Moreover, any works not covered by an exception would require permission that must be sought from the local planning authority , as would any boundary alterations or changes. 27. My atten tion has been drawn to two appeal s 4 that relate to development and ancient woodland. Whilst I do not have full details of these schemes they appear to be for a development of a greater scale and not for a replacement dwellin g such that I can draw no comparisons that lead me to reach a different conclusion on this issue. 28. Circular 06/2005 (the Circular) , referred to in paragraph 185 of the Framework, states that it is essential the presence or otherwise of protected species and the extent that they may be affected is established before planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed. The need to ensure ec ological surveys are carried out should therefore only be left to coverage under planning conditions in exceptional circumstances. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (the NERC Act) also places a duty on all public authorities to have re gard, in the exercise of their functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. 29. I have had regard to the comments regarding bats following the submission of an updated Ecological Impact Assessment 5 . The updated assessment detailed two additional surveys , which show building3 was used for foraging and lacked suitable roosting potential . There is no disagreement that buildng2 contains roosting bats and the surrounding area , including the appeal site is utilis ed for commuting and foraging . Subject to appropriate mitigation and enhancement features as detailed within the updated Ecological Impact Assessment the proposed development would not result in harm to protected species namely bats. 30. For the reasons set out above the proposal would have an acceptable effect upon biodiversity and protected species. This would be compliant with Policies NE1 of the VALP and Polic ies EN1 and EN2 of the ACNP . The proposal would also accord with chapter 15 o f the Framework , the NERC Act and the Circular. Biodiversity net gain 31. Policy NE1 of the VALP and Polic ies EN1 and EN2 of the ACNP, requires a biodiversity net gain (BNG). This will be sought by protecting, managing, enhancing and extending existing biodiv ersity resources and by creating new biodiversity resources. These policies are broadly consistent with the Framework and Planning Practice guidance in so far as they relate to conserving and enhancing the natural environment. 32. As noted above , the appellan t has provided a BNG Report and Biodiversity Metric as part of the appeal scheme. The main parties are in agreement regarding the findings of the documents, which show habitat gains through the creation of other neutral grassland and individual tree plant ing . 33. The Council's main concern is that biodiversity net gains must identify what is proposed within the application line and what is proposed outside the application line to secure the gains appropriately . 4 Appeal refs: APP/C1435/W/23/3321978 and APP/C1435/W/22/3307820 5 Ecological Impact Assessment (non - EIA) prepared by ecologybydesign dated October 2023 . Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 34. When taking into account the revised site boundary , the appeal site still appears to have sufficient space in which to accommodate planting, hedgerows , and other methods that could be employed to secure BNG. Moreover , a completed and signed UU includes obligations related to BNG on the adjoining land that while outside of the application boundary form s part of the wider site. This site could provide adequate biodiversity offsetting as required by the Council BNG SPD 6 . Therefore, a net - gain can ultimately be achieved through on - site mitigation an d/or off - site offsetting if required. 35. With the imposition of suitably worded condition s and the UU , the proposal would achieve BNG and this would be compliant with Polic y NE1 of the VALP , Polic ies EN1 and EN2 of the ACNP and the BNG SPD. The proposal would also accord with the Framework , in so far as it seeks to increase biodiversity. Other Matters 36. The appeal site falls within the zone of influence of the Chilterns Beechwood Special Area of Conservation ( SAC ) . The SAC is protected for its beech forests, semi - natural dry grasslands and scrub, and its population of stag beetles. As the competent authority in this case, I have a duty under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to consider, in the interests of the protection from harm, whether a given development would have likely significant effects on the integrity and/or special interest of the SAC either in isolation or in combination with other plans/projects. 37. New residential development within the z one of i nfluence has the p otential to adversely affect the integrity of the designated site through increased recreational pressure. As a replacement dwelling, the proposal would not result in a net increase of residential development and therefore would not lead to increased recre ational pressure. As such, I am satisfied that the proposal alone and in combination with other plans and projects would not have a likely significant effect on the SAC. 38. The appeal site is located within the CNL, where, as set out in paragraph 182 of the F ramework, great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty. T he Council did not object to the design of the replacement dwelling and based on the submitted plans and my observations onsite , I find no reason to disagree . The overall scale, massing and form of the dwelling would be inconspicuous in the wider countryside and would remove some deteriorating outbuildings . Th ese positive effect s would , therefore conserve and , to a limited degree , enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the C NL . Conditions 39. The Council have suggested that 18 conditions be imposed, which I conclude on below. In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the approach in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. Wher e pre - commencement conditions have been imposed these have been agreed by the appellant. 40. In addition to the statutory time limit condition, a condition specifying the plans that are approved and that the development shall be undertaken in accordance with t hem is required in the interests of certainty. 6 Buckinghamshire Council Biodiversity Net Gain - Supplementary Planning Document July 2022. Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 41. To protect the character and appearance of the area, it is also necessary to impose conditions requiring details of the external surfaces of the development finished floor/ground level and have these approved by the Council. For similar reasons condition on hard and soft landscaping is also required. A condition on boundary treatments is also necessary for the character and appearance of the area and the residential amenities of nearby occupiers. 42. A condition f or a BNG Report and associated Biodiversity Metric was suggested by the Council. However, given that both have been submitted as part of the appeal process and details for BNG are also required as part of the Landscape and Ecological Management Plan, this condition would not be necessary or reasonable. In the interests of safeguarding protected species, ancient woodland and habitat conditions are also required. 43. Details of water consumption are necessary in the interest of reducing water consumption. Also, a condition is necessary for the submission of a surface water drainage scheme in the interests of sustainable drainage. 44. In the interests of parking and sustainable travel options , cycle storage is required. For highway safety reasons, car parking and man oeuvring conditions are also required . 45. permitted development rights, it is possible for homeowners, in implementing these rights, to affect the character and appearance of the area. Due to the location of the site within the CNL , I consider this condition necessary. 46. I nstalling electric vehicle charge points in new homes now forms part of Building Control Regulations. It has not been explained why these regulations and controls do not satisfactorily deal with the request for a condition . As such, this suggested condition is considered unnecessary. 47. A condition on the residential curtilage has been requested. However, details are included in the plan's condition, and it is therefore not needed. Conclusion 48. For the reason set out above, the appeal is allowed. A Hickey INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 Schedule of conditions ( 1 - 16 ) 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: 03 - 001 A Location Plan 03 - 012 A Proposed site plan 03 - 002 Existing and proposed curtilage plan ( proposed reduced domestic curtilage) 45 - 011 - A1 Proposed site plan wide 4 5 - 013 - A1 Proposed roof plan 45 - 020 - A1 Proposed floor plan 03 - 015 Site s ection diagrams 45 - 030 A1 Proposed elevations : north and east 45 - 031 A1 Proposed elevations : south and west LAC _ 005 rev A Landscape section LAC_004_rev C Feb 2023 Landscape masterplan LAC_003_rev D Landscape Design 03 - 004 Boundaries Plan 3. No development (other than the necessary testing to ascertain the ground condition) shall take place until a detailed sustainable surface water drainage scheme for the site has been submitt ed to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall be based on an assessment of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system in accordance with the principles as set out in the Technic al Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework. It shall also include calculations and demonstrate that the surface water generated by this development can be accommodated and disposed of without discharging onto the highway and without increasing f lood risk on or off - site. The drainage scheme shall also demonstrate that the silt and pollutants resulting from the site can be adequately managed to ensure there is no pollution risk to receiving waters. 4. No work s shall be carried out on site (including site clearance and demolition) until an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP) has been submitted in accordance with current British Standard 5837 and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Ground protection meas ures including protective fencing shall be erected or installed prior to the commencement of any works or development on the site including any works of demolition and shall conform to current British Standard 5837 specification guidance. The approved fenc ing and/or ground protection measures shall be retained and maintained until all building, engineering or other operations have been completed. No work shall be carried out or materials stored within the fenced or protected areas without prior written agre ement from the Local Planning Authority. The development thereafter shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details. The AMS & TPP shall include: Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 1.) Detailed plans showing location of the protective fencing including any additional gr ound protection whether temporary or permanent; 2.) Details as to proposed access into and out of the site; - root protection areas of retained trees; 4.) All phases and timing of the project, including phasing of demolition and construction operations, in relation to arboricultural matters and details of supervision by a qualified arboriculturist and details of site supervision; and 5.) Siting of machinery, work huts and contracto r parking; areas for the storage of materials and the siting of skips and working spaces. 5. No work shall be carried out on site (including site clearance and demolition) until a habitat management plan (HMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing b y the local planning authority. The content of the HMP shall include the following. a) Description and evaluation of features to be managed. b) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management. c) Aims and objectives of management which will (without limitation) include the provision of biodiversity net gain within the Site as shown within the Biodiversity Gain Plan. d) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives. e) Details of e cological buffer. f) Details of wildlife sensitive lighting should external lightening be proposed during operational phase of the development. g) Model specifications and locations of biodiversity enhancement features (a minimum of a bat box, bee hotel and bi rd box). h) Prescriptions for management actions. i) Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a thirty - year period). j) Details of the body or organization responsible for implementation of the plan. k) Ong oing monitoring and remedial measures. The HMP shall also include details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the long - term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the management body(ies) responsible for its delivery. The plan shall be for no less than 30 years. The plan shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the HMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed, and i mplemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme. The approved plan will be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 6. No work shall be carried out on site (includi ng site clearance and demolition) until a construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP (Biodiversity) shall include the following. a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities. b) buffer. Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (m ay be provided as a set of method statements). d) Measures to avoid and mitigate impacts to the SSSI (Site of Specific Scientific Interest), priority habitat, local wildlife site and recognised nature reserve. e) Demonstrate how best practice will be used to min imise dust to ensure no pollution from demolition or construction adversely affect the SSSI f) Details of wildlife sensitive lighting should external lightening be proposed during construction phase of the development. g) The location and timing of sensitive wor ks to avoid harm to biodiversity features. h) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works. i) Responsible persons and lines of communication. j) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person. k) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs. The approved CEMP must be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approve d details. 7. No construction shall take place above slab level until a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The LEMP shall include a woodland management plan and a bio diversity management and monitoring plan which shall follow the recommendations of the Ecological Impact Assessment (non - EIA) dated October 2023 , the landscape and ecological management summary prepared by SEED dated 15/09/2023 , and shall be prepared in accordance with the Habitat Management Plan approved pursuant to condition 5 of this permission. The LEMP shall demonstrate that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the details of the Landscape Masterplan dated May 2023 and the Landscape Developed Design LAC_003_Rev D and shall provide for native planting within the Ecological Buffer Zone indicated on 03 - 012 rev A. The LEMP shall also demonstrate that the development shall achieve a minimum net gain in biodiversity of 21% in accordance with the Biodiversity Net Gain report and metric dated September 2023. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details . 8. No development beyond site clearance shall take place until details of the proposed finished floor levels of all buildings and the finished ground levels of the site, in relation to existing site levels of surrounding property, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved levels. 9. No development above slab level shall commence until a schedule of all the materials to be used in the construction of all external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approve d in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 10. N o development shall take place above slab level until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and ap proved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall accord with the approved Landscape masterplan and include existing trees and/or hedgerows to be retained and/or removed accurately shown with root protection areas; schedules of plants noting species, plant supply sizes and proposed densities; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with tree, plant and grass establishment; and the implementation programme. Development shall be carried out in accorda nce with the approved details. If within a period of ten years from the date of the planting of any tree or shrub, that tree or shrub, or any tree and shrub planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed, dies, becomes severely damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees and shrubs of equivalent size, species and quantity. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of the building or the completion of the development w hichever is the sooner or in accordance with the agreed programme of works . 11. No development shall take place above slab level until details of all boundary treatments including walls, fences, gates or other means of enclosure to be erected in or around the residential curtilage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter. 12. Prior to first occupation of the development hereby app roved secure bicycle storage facilities for the dwelling shall be provided and fully installed. The storage facilities shall be retained thereafter. 13. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted the car parking and manoeuvring area shall be laid out and constructed in accordance with the approved drawings. The car parking area so provided shall be maintained and shall be used for no other purpose thereafter. 14. The development her e by approved shall be implemented in accordance with Appendix 7 of the bat activity survey (Elite Ecology, October 2023) identified within the agreed Ecological Impact Assessment (ecology by Design, October 2023) recommendation. Prior to occupation of the approved dwel ling a written statement to confirm the recommendations have be carried out will first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority . 15. The dwelling hereby permitted shall be constructed and fitted out so as not to exceed the optio nal water consumption standard of 110 litres per person per day, as set out in Approved Document G of the Building Regulations 2010 (as amended). 16. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Or der 2015 (or any Order revoking or re - enacting that Order, with or without modification), no development covered by Classes A, B and E of Part 1 and Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to that Order shall be carried out without the specific grant of planning p ermission from the Local Planning Authority.⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
For similar reasons condition on hard and soft landscaping is also required. A condition on boundary treatments is also necessary for the character and appearance of the area and the residential amenities of nearby occupiers. 42. A condition f or a BNG Report and associated Biodiversity Metric was suggested by the Council. However, given that both have been submitted as part of the appeal process and details for BNG are also required as part of the Landscape and Ecological Management Plan, this condition would not be necessary or reasonable. In the interests of safeguarding protected species, ancient woodland and habitat conditions are also required. 43. Details of water consumption are necessary in the interest of reducing water consumption. Also, a condition is necessary for the submission of a surface water drainage scheme in the interests of sustainable drainage. 44. In the interests of parking and sustainable travel options , cycle storage is required. For highway safety reasons, car parking and man oeuvring Conclusion 48. For the reason set out above, the appeal is allowed. A Hickey
✓ 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 3330584 (Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council) — 2024-05-02
📍 Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council PINS reference: 3330584 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - i nspectorate Appeal Decisio n Site visit made on 16 April 2024 B y A Berry MTCP (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 nd May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/ W 4325 /W/23/33 30584 17 Marfords Avenue, Bromborough, Wirral CH63 0JH The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an application for planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr Stephen Mills against Wirral Metropolitan Borough Council. The application Ref is APPH/23/00438. The development proposed is a t wo - storey extension to the front and side of the house with a single storey extension to the rear. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed , and planning permission is granted for a two - storey extension to the front and side of the house with a single storey extension to the rear at 17 Marfords Avenue, Bromborough, Wirral CH63 0JH in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref APPH/23/00 438, and subject to the conditions in the schedule below. Preliminary Matters 2. Following the submission of the appeal against non - determination, the Council has clarified its position if it had had the opportunity to make the decision. The appellant has had the opportunity to comment up on this information and has therefore not been prejudiced. I have determined the appeal on this basis. 3. Since the appeal was lodged, a revised N ational Planning Policy Framework has been published. This has not raised any new matters which are determinative to the outcome of this appeal. Main Issue 4. The Council has clarified that they raise no objection to the single storey rear extension. Conseque ntly, the main issue is the effect of the two - storey side/front extension on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Reasons 5. Marfords Avenue is a residential street that predominantly consist s of two - storey detached and link - detached dwelling s that are mixed in their appearance as many have been extended/altered in different ways. I t is proposed to demolish the garage a nd construct a two - storey side extension that would project in a similar manner as the garage. Supplementary Planning Guidance 11 House Extensions provides guidance for two - storey side extensions and states that to maintain a visual break and to ensure the extension respects Appeal Decision APP/W4325/W/23/3330584 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 the character and scale of the original house, it should be set back from the front of the dwelling by 1m and have a lower ridge height. 6. The proposed two - storey extension would reduce the gap be tween the host dwelling and 19 Marfords Avenue , particularly at first floor level and would have a ridge height that would match the original dwelling . However, a visual break would be maintained between the proposed extensi on and No 19 , and the proposed e forward projection would prevent the creation of a terracing effect . While the proposed extension would not be subservient in scale, it would respect the character of the host dwelling and enhance its appearance . During my site visit I noted exa mples of two - storey side/front extensions constructed at other properties along Marfords Avenue t h at had a similar appearance to the appeal propos al . T herefore , the proposed extension would not appear incongruous when viewed from the road. Furthermore, the information before me suggests that these extensions were approved by the Council and there have been no material changes to the development plan . 7. In reference to the main issue, the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the surrounding area. It would comply with Polic y HS11 of the Wirral Unitary Development Plan (including Minerals and Waste Policies) Written Statement, adopted 2000 , which amongst other things, seeks to ensure that house extensions do not dominate the exi sting building . Although a set back and lower ridge height, the SPG is guidance and the inclusion of within the text suggests that its requirements do not need to be followed in every case . Conditions 8. The Council state there are no conditions they would recommend should I be minded to allow the appeal as the proposed materials are clear ly detailed on the submitted drawings. However, I must impose the standard condition which relates to the commencement of development , and I have specified the approved plans for the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. Conclusion 9. For the reasons given above, having regard to the development plan as a whole and all other material considerations, I conclude that the ap peal should be allowed. A Berry INSPECTOR Schedule of Conditions 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 app roved plans: Location Plan, W03 Proposed Ground and Floor Plan, W04 Proposed First Floor Plan, W05 Proposed Elevations. ***End of Conditions***⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
While the proposed extension would not be subservient in scale, it would respect the character of the host dwelling and enhance its appearance . During my site visit I noted exa mples of two - storey side/front extensions constructed at other properties along Marfords Avenue t h at had a similar appearance to the appeal propos al . T herefore , the proposed extension would not appear incongruous when viewed from the road. Furthermore, the information before me suggests that these extensions were approved by the Council and there have been no material changes to the development plan . 7. In reference to the main issue, the proposal would not harm the character or appearance of the surrounding area. It would comply with Polic y HS11 of the Wirral Unitary Development Plan (including Minerals and Waste Policies) Written Statement, adopted 2000 , which amongst other things, seeks to ensure that house extensions do not dominate the exi sting building . Although a set back and lower ridge height, the SPG is guidance and the inclusion of within the text suggests that its requirements do not need to be followed in every case . Conditions 8. The Council state there are no Conclusion 9. For …
✓ 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 3328363 (Cheshire East) — 2024-05-02
📍 Cheshire East PINS reference: 3328363 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 April 2024 by Hannah Ellison BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 nd M ay 20 24 Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/23/3328363 Land to the North West of Overdale, Oak Road, Mottram St Andrew SK10 4RA 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 David Fletcher against the decision of Chesh ire East Council. The application Ref is 22/4431M. The development proposed is the c onstruction of a detached single dwellinghouse with garden and parking. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the c onstruction of a detached single dwellinghouse with garden and parking at Land to the North West of Overdale, Oak Road, Mottram St Andrew SK10 4RA in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/4431M, s ubject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matter s 2. I have taken the site address above from the planning decision notice as this is the most complete version provided. 3. Since the appeal was lodged, a revised version of the National Plann ing Policy Framework (the Framework) was published (December 2023). This does not materially change the planning policy context in respect of the main issue. Main Issue 4. The main issue is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Reasons 5. Th is appeal concerns a plot of land front ing Oak Road. It is located within the settlement of Mottram St Andrew and is surrounded by residential properties. The appeal site falls within the Green Belt and, as Mottram St Andrew does not have a defined settlement boundary, is within the open countryside for planning policy purposes. 6. Policy PG3 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2010 - 2030 ( July 2017 ) (the CELPS) sets out that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate in the G reen Belt, with one exception to this being limited infilling in villages. This is consistent with the exception to inappropriate development in the Green Belt at paragraph 154 e) of the Framework . Appeal Decision APP/R0660 /W/23/3328363 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 7. Similarly, C ELPS Policy PG6 restricts development to that which is essential for the uses appropriate to the rural area, with an exception being where there is the opportunity for limited infilling in villages and the infill of a small gap with one or two dwellings in an otherwise built - up frontage elsewhere. 8. The re is no dispute between the main parties that the appeal proposal would be limited in respect of the scale of the development and that the site is position ed between existing dwellings thus would reflect infill development . I have no reason to find otherw ise. 9. Policy PG10 of the Cheshire East Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (December 2022) (the SADPD) spatially defines certain settlements in the borough as infill villages . The appeal site does not fall within one of the identified settlements . In this circumstance, criterion 4 states that development proposals will not be considered to be limited infilling in villages when applying CELPS policies PG3 and PG6. As such, the p roposal conflicts with this policy and is contrary to the approach to limited infilling in villages as set out in the development plan. 10. C ase law 1 has however established that the boundary of a defined village m ay not be determinative for this purpose, rather it is a matter of planning judgement for the decision - maker having regard to the facts on the ground as well as any relevant policies . 11. Neither the development plan nor the Framework provide a definition of a village. I observed that Mottram St Andrew contains a church, primary school and village hall. There are no shops or other services. Nevertheless, the settlement is built - up with a considerable number of residential properties . The collection of buildings is dispersed over a large area. On passing through, it has a distinctive village character assisted largely by the many examples of traditional built form, narrow highways and mature landscaping. 12. O n the approach to the appeal site from the south there is a clear distinction between the countryside and the beginning of the built form in the settlement. The appeal site is a distinctive gap located within the built - up linear arrangement of built form along Oak Road leading towards the junction with P riest Lane. It is evidently within the village. 13. Based on my observations, the appeal site has a very clear visual and physical relationship with the village . I therefore find that the appeal site would appear as part of the village for the purposes of the - the - 14. Consequently , the proposal would accord with the relevant provisions of Polic ies PG3 and PG6 of the CELPS , along with the exception at paragraph 154 e) of the Framework and thus would not be inapprop riate development in the Green Belt . 15. W hilst the appeal site would not be within an infill village as defined by Policy PG10 and thus the proposal would conflict with the approach set out i n this policy, given my interpretation of the settlement on the ground I afford limited weight to this conflict. 1 Julian Wood v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Gravesham Borough Council [2015] EWHC Civ 195 Appeal Decision APP/R0660 /W/23/3328363 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 16. Given my findings there is n o need to go on to consider the effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt or consider w hether v ery spe cial circumstances exist . Other Matter 17. I note and share t boundary fence as shown on the submitted plans . Nevertheless, t his matter can be effectively dealt with by way of appropriately worded condition s . Conditi ons 18. The Council provided a list of suggested conditions to be attached should the appeal be allowed. Having regard to the six tests set out in the Framework I have altered the wording of some of the suggested conditions where required , without affecting th eir overall intention . 19. I have attached the standard time limit and plans list conditions in the interest of certainty. In the interests of the rural character of the area I have amended the suggested materials condition so as to require details of the brickwork to be submitted , as this is not specified on the approved plans . 20. In the interests of biodiversity and the charact er and appearance o f the area , I have attached conditions relating to nesting birds and bats, the removal of vegetation and existing and proposed landscaping . Conclusion 21. The proposal accords with the development plan as a whole , thus the appeal should be a llowed. H Ellison INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/R0660 /W/23/3328363 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 Schedule of Conditions 1. The development hereby permitted shall be g in not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 293.01 Revision A, 293.02 Revision C and 293.03 Revision D ( except in respect of the s outheast boundary fence ). 3. Prior to its installation, details of the brickwork shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Lo cal Planning Authority . The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4. No above ground development shall commence until a strategy for the incorporation of features to enhance the biodiversity value of the develop ment hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted strategy should include proposals for the provision of features for nesting birds and roosting bats (any external lighting should avoid direc t light spill upon bat roost features), brash/deadwood piles and native species planting. The approved details shall thereafter be implemented in full prior to first occupation of the development and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved de tails . 5. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted there shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the L ocal P lanning A uthority a scheme of landscaping. The scheme shall include details of hard landscaping, boundary treatments, planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with tree, shrub, hedge or grass establishment), schedules of plants noting species, plant sizes, the proposed numbers and densities , an impl ementation programme and indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land to be retained and set out measures for their protection throughout the course of development. 6. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of lands caping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted 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 development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. 7. No removal of any vegetation shall take place between 1st March and 31st August in any year, unless a detailed survey has been carried out to check for nesting birds. Where nests are found in any hedgerow, tree or scrub or other habitat to be removed, a 4m exclusion zone shall be left around the nest until breeding is complete. Comple tion of nesting shall be confirmed by a suitably qualified person and a report submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any further works within the exclusion zone take place. End of Schedule⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
Given my findings there is n o need to go on to consider the effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt or consider w hether v ery spe cial circumstances exist . Other Matter 17. I note and share t boundary fence as shown on the submitted plans . Nevertheless, t his matter can be effectively dealt with by way of appropriately worded condition s . Conditi ons 18. The Council provided a list of suggested conditions to be attached should the appeal be allowed. Having regard to the six tests set out in the Framework I have altered the wording of some of the suggested conditions where required , without affecting th eir overall intention . 19. I have attached the standard time limit and plans list conditions in the interest of certainty. In the interests of the rural character of the area I have amended the suggested materials condition so as to require details of the brickwork to be submitted , as this is not specified on the approved plans . 20. In the interests of biodiversity and the charact er and appearance o f the area , I have attached Conclusion 21. The proposal accords with the development plan as a whole , thus the appeal should be a llowed. H Ellis…
✓ 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 3326956 (Isle of Wight Council) — 2024-05-02
📍 Isle of Wight Council PINS reference: 3326956 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 2 April 2024 by S Harley BSc(Hons) M.Phil MRTPI ARICS an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 nd May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/P2114/D/23/3326956 Cherry Tree House , Youngwoods Way, Alverstone Garden Village, Newchurch , Isle of Wight PO36 0HF 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 and Mrs M Sky rme against the decision of the Isle of Wight Council. The application Ref is 23/00888 /HOU . The development proposed is single storey side/rear extension. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a single storey side/rear extension at Cherry Tree House , Youngwoods Way , Alverstone Garden Village, Newchurch, Isle of Wight PO36 0HF in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 23/0088 8 /HOU , and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matters 2. An updated version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was published in December 2023. Its content is largely unchanged in relation to the main issues of this appeal, so I have not sought the views of the main parties on this matter. 3. In November 2023, the National Landscapes Association reported that all designated Areas of O utstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs) had become National Landscapes. However, the Framework continues to refer to them as AONBs. In this decision I have used the term AONB, consistent with the evidence and the Framework. The legal designation and policy statu s of such areas is unaffected, whichever term is used. 4. Since the application was refused a T ree P reservation O rder , 23/00021/TPO , protecting three oak trees in the rear garden of Rowan, a neighbouring house to the appeal site , has come into force . Main Iss ue 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the area particularly the effect on trees. Reasons 6. The appeal site is a detached house in a l a rge garden in an area of similar properties. It is in the Isle of Wight AONB . I n accordance with the Framework great weight must be given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and Appeal Decision APP/P2114/D/23/3326956 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 scenic beauty of AONB s , which have the highest status of protection in relation to these issues. 7. The house has a substantial front garden and is at a higher level than the shared access track . The proposed small, single storey , wrap around extension would be to the side and rear of the house. It would be of acceptable design and would not be intrusive in views from the street or neighbouring properties. Due to its size and position it would not detract from the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB. 8. The are a is attractive and verdant because of the many mature trees and shrubs in gardens around the houses an d nearby woodlands. Although there are trees within the appeal site none are near to the proposed extension. The group of protected trees at Rowan are close to the shared boundary . B ranches of the nearest oak tree spread over part of the garden of Cherry T ree House and some reach its roof . 9. The protected trees are mature attractive specimens and their canopies can be seen from the surrounding area between houses and above roofs . Together and individually they add significant value to the verdant and attractive character of the local area. 10. The tree nearest to the proposed extension has been pruned in the past and its branches are well above the patio such that no works are nece ssary to the tree to enable the extension to be constructed. A n a ppropriate foundation design would be sufficient to mitigate any effect on tree roots and downpipe/ gutter protection would reduce any nuisance arising from tree litter . 11. Trees are living pla nts so they cannot be managed in ways that are wholly free from risk or the need for maintenance . The proposed extension would be beneath the bran ches of the oak tree . As a result there could be fears of the p otential for damage to property or people from falling branches . However, this is not significantly different to any such fears which might arise in respect of the risk in relation to the existing patio. I see no reason to suppose that such risk could not be managed in the fu ture by appropriate pruning that did not adversely affect the appearance or health of the tree albeit such works would need to be adequately justified . 12. I conclude the propos al would not have a harmful effect on nearby trees and would have an acceptable ef fect on the character and appearance of the area . The proposal would not harm the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB . Accordingly I find no conflict with P olicies DM2 or DM12 of the I sland P lan C ore S trategy 2012 , which amongst other things , seek to optimise the potential of a site but have regard to existing constraints such as trees and to conserve enhance and promote the landscape of the I sland . Nor do I find conflict with the aims of the Isle of Wight Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Man agement Plan 2019 2024 i n seeking to conserv e and enhanc e the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB . Conditions 13. I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council and the details proposed by the appellant s in the light of the tests in the Fr amework and the Planning Policy Guidance. Where appropriate I have amended the wording of conditions to reflect the guidance. Appeal Decision APP/P2114/D/23/3326956 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 14. Compliance with the submitted plans and a time scale for implementation are necessary for certainty. 15. An A rboricultural Method Statement setting out excavation methods, foundation design, tree protection measures and downpipe /gutter protection is required to minimise the effect on protected trees. These details are required prior to the commencement of develop ment to ensure the protection of the trees from damage during construction and to ensure that the extension is appropriately constructed to protect the health of the trees and the character and appearance of the area. The appellants do not object to the pr oposed condition. Conclusion 16. For the reasons set out above the appeal should be allowed. S Harley INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/P2114/D/23/3326956 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 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 the following approved plans BDS338/300 and TCP/S/01 . 3) No preparatory work or development shall take place until an A rboricultural Method Statement in relation to the protected oak trees a t Rowan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . This shall include : a) details of the means of excavation and foundation design of the proposed extension incorporating measures to minimise impact on tree roots ; b) detail s of the means to minimise the potential impact on the trees during construction works, including details of protective tree fencing to be installed for the duration of construction works ; c) details of downpipe and gutter protection measures to minimi se nuisance from tree litter . The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved M ethod S tatement and the downpipe and gutter protection measures shall be retained thereafter. End of Schedule⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
12. I conclude the propos al would not have a harmful effect on nearby trees and would have an acceptable ef fect on the character and appearance of the area . The proposal would not harm the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB . Accordingly I find no conflict with P olicies DM2 or DM12 of the I sland P lan C ore S trategy 2012 , which amongst other things , seek to optimise the potential of a site but have regard to existing constraints such as trees and to conserve enhance and promote the landscape of the I sland . Nor do I find conflict with the aims of the Isle of Wight Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Man agement Plan 2019 2024 i n seeking to conserv e and enhanc e the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB . Conditions 13. I have considered the conditions put forward by the Council and the details proposed by the appellant s in the light of the tests in the Fr amework and the Planning Policy Guidance. Where appropriate I have amended the wording of Conclusion 16. For the reasons set out above the appeal should be allowed. S Harley
⚖️ 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.