🏆 Winning Arguments

T here is nothing within this definition that supports the Council’s position that land with a degree of separation greater than a road or river could not be considered to form an agricultural unit . Furthermore, no compelling evidence has been presented to suggest that the geographical and spatial separation is so great that it would make it impracticable for the land at Stanton on the Wolds and Tollerton to be operated as a single agricultural unit. For the se reasons, and i n the absence of any evidence that suggests otherwise , I find that , together , the land at Stanton on the Wold s and at Tollerton comprise an agricultural unit . 10. In conclusion , even if I were to agree with the Council that following the introduction of the glamping site, the extent of agricultural land that remains at Stanton on the Wolds would be less than 5ha , the development would , nevertheless, be carried out on agr icultural land comprised in an agricultural unit that exceeds 5ha in total. A s there is nothing before me to suggest that the development would not comply with any of the other limitations and Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, …

conclusions on this development. 25. A neighbouring occupier has queried the accuracy of the red line on the application drawings. However, the appropriate ownership certificate was served on the neighbour advising of the development before the application was submitted. 26. A neighbour expressed concerns about w indows facing into their property over the shared boundary. These windows are existing and at a high level in the wall s , but would serve habitable rooms and bathrooms in units C and D. Where these windows would serve habitable rooms these would be dual - aspect or open plan rooms with other windows to provide outlook. Accordingly, a suitably worded c o ndition could ensure that these windows are retained as non - opening with obscured glazing to preserve the privacy of the neighbouring occupiers. While the neighbour also expressed concern about light from these windows there would be no change to their size or siting . This would therefore not resu lt in unacceptable harm to neighbour living conditions. 27. Interested parties raised concerns about the council’s handling of the application in relation to public consultation and the extent to which they sought the views o…

Conclusion 43. I have concluded that the Inn is no longer viable as a public house . Not withstanding the harm arising from the l oss of some community and social value, as well as minor harm to the significance of designated heritage assets, that loss would be outweighed by the listed building’s continued upkeep and its future occupation as a residence . 44. There is no conflict with the local development plan or the Framework , and no material considerations of such weight to lead me to conclude other than that the appeal should be allowed. A Edgington

Conclusion 126. I appreciate SO DC’s and TFAG’s submissions reflect the material difficulties in developing the appeal site , requiring due scrutiny particularly in light of all detected shortfalls . 127. Even so, I must make clear a decision on the appeal case s in dispute is not an opportunity to go behind the principle of allowing housing development already granted to the appellant. The starting point for any decision maker is that such principle has already been formally established . 128. When assessed I find that the technical deficiencies in the appellant’s proposals are not strong enough reasons to resist the appeals. In totality, allowing for planning condition and legal agreement use , I find that there is adequate information available regarding the risks to local water resources and the PWS . The collective stabilisation, ground stability, pollution, drainage and flood risk impacts would be acceptable. A s well as there being reasonable mechanisms available to facilitate PWS and wider locality protection s meeting SO DC’s reasons for refusal they applied when determining the relevant applications . Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP…

However, from my reading of these it is clear that each decision falls to be considered, as a matter of fact and degree, and based on the site - specific circumstances, and the evidence before the decision maker. Whilst I have had regard to these, in this case, I have based my decision on the facts and circumstances of this particular case , the layout of properties in the Close, and on the guidance provided within the TG. 18. Therefore, as a matter of fac t and degree, and on the balance of probabilities, I consider that the Devon Close elevation containing the most prominent architectural features is the principal elevation . It also provides the propert y’s address and postcode . T he development would not fail to meet the limitations under Paragraph B.1(c) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B of the GPDO , since t he proposed roof extension would not extend beyond the plane of any existing roof slope which form the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse and fronts a highway . 19. The Council have raised no further conflict against any of the other limitations and Conclusion 20. For the reasons given above I conclude, on the evidence now available, that the Council’s refusal to gra…

In this respect, t he Park Road facing elevation contain s the two original bay windows , which are the main architectural features of th is property , and remain in place today . 13. Th e Park Road facing elevation is also the elevation that sets the post code and address for this dwelling . Furthermore, the area where the proposed outbuilding is proposed has been described by L and R egist ry as “ Land at the back of 3 Park Road ”. This adds further weight that the principal elevation is the one facing towards Park Road . 14. Therefore, as a matter of fac t and degree, and on the balance of probabilities, I consider that the Park Road elevation containing the most prominent architectural features (that being the 2 bay windows) is the principal elevation. T he development would not fail to meet the limitations under Part E.1(c) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the GPDO , since the outbuilding would not be situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse. 15. The Council have raised no conflict against any of the other limitations and Conclusion 1. For the reasons given above I conclude, on the evidence now available, that the Counc…

16. The development at the very least preserves the character and appearance of the host property, street scene and the adjoining BC CA. The development therefore accords with the relevant provisions of M LP policies D12.1, D12.4 and D12.5; policy D4 of the London Plan, adopted March 2021; and the Framework. Collectively, these require development to be inclusive, sustainable, efficient and of a high quality of design to maintain the existing buildings across the urban and suburban environment , alongside the prot ection of heritage assets , amongst other things. Conclusion on ground (a) 3 Dated 10/2025 4 South Oxfordshire DC v SSE & J Donaldson [1991] CO/1440/89 Appeal Decision APP/T5720/C/24/3350509 https://www.gov.uk/planning- inspectorate 4 17. Overall, the development will not have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property, the street scene nor setting of the BCCA . The development would therefore conform with the intentions of the relevant policies in the Local Plan and the Framework as detailed above. Conclusion 19. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal succeed s on ground (a). I shall grant planning permission for the developme…

16. The unsaid corollary of the LPA’s submissions is that the building provides all the facilities necessary for day - to - day living and thus use as a dwellinghouse. However, the appellant s submi t that the kitchen facilities are insufficient to provide the facilities required for day - to - day private domestic existence. 17. In any event, even if they building did meet the Gravesham 1 test s, and the use of the building were to have materially change d to a dwellinghouse following substantially completion of the building operations , then that would be a subsequent breach of planning control since it would constitute development without planning permission. It would not alter the fact that the building operations comprised in the form of the building as it was on 15 February 2024, w ere substantially completed on or before 15 February 2020. 18. Consequently, it seems to me that, at the date the LDC application was made, the construction of a building used for purposes ancillary to the keeping of horses would have been lawful within the meaning of S191(2) of the Act because the time for taking enforcement action against it had expired and it did not constitute the contraventio…