🏆 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 3377271 (Rushcliffe Borough Council) — 2026-05-29
📍 Rushcliffe Borough Council LPA code: E07000176 PINS reference: 3377271 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 22 May 2026 by Elaine Moulton BA (Hons) BPl MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/P3040/W/26/3377271 Birdholme Wood, Melton Road, Stanton on the Wolds, Nottinghamshire NG12 5BQ • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant approval required under Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 6 , Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). • The appeal is made by Peter Hinchley of Foxcote Farm Ltd against the decision of Rushcliffe Borough Council. • The application Ref is 25/00985/AGRIC. • The development proposed is GP Steel portal frame storage barn. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and prior approval is granted under the provisions of Article 3(1) and Schedule 2, Part 6, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) for GP Steel portal frame storage barn at Birdholme Wood, Melton Road, Stanton on the Wolds, Nottinghamshire NG12 5BQ in accordance with the application 25/00985/AGRIC and the details submitted with. Preliminary Matters 2. Schedule 2, Part 6 , Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (GPDO) permits the carrying out on agricultural land , comprised in an agricultural unit of 5 hectares o r more , of works for the erection, extension or alteration of a building which are reasonably necessary for the purposes of agriculture within that unit . Such permitted development rights are subject to limitations and conditions including the limitation that development is not permitted if it would be carried out on a separate parcel of land forming part of the unit which is less than 1 hectare (ha) in area. 3. The Council refused the application because it considers that the proposed development is not permitted under Part 6, Class A of the GPDO because , in its view , it would not be carried out on agricultural land comprised in an agricultural unit of 5 hectares or more. 4. Paragraph A.2(2) of the GPDO states that for development permitted by Class A the developer must, before beginning the development, apply to the local planning authority for a determination as to whether its prior approval is r e quired as to the siting, design and external appearance of the building. Given that the Council concluded that the proposed barn was not permitted development, it did not go on to consider whether prior approval was required or whether it should be granted. Appeal Decision APP/P3040/W/26/3377271 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Main Issues 5. Considering the above, the main issues are: • w hether the proposed development would be on agricultural land that comprises an agricultural unit of 5 hectares or more , so as to constitute permitted development ; and , • if it is permitted development, w hether prior approval should be granted , having regard to matters of siting, design and external appearance . Reasons Whether the proposed development is on agricultural land that comprises an agricultural unit of 5 hectares or more 6. The appeal site is part of an area of land extending to 7.29 ha at Stanton on the Wolds, which is largely woodland planted under the English Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS) and contains a glamping site . Th e Council’s position is that 4.65 ha of this land remains in agricultural use , whilst the appellant considers that to be 7.166ha . 7. The appellant also has 43ha of rented land at Tollerton, which the parties agree is approximately 4 miles by road from the Stanton on the Wolds land . 8. The Council acknowledges that an agricultural holding can be formed of separate parcels of land and does not dispute that the two blocks of land , at Stanton on the Wolds and Tollerton , form an active agricultural business . Based on the information before me, I have no reason to disagree . However, the Council considers that the land at Stanton on the Wolds and at Tollerton do not comprise the same agricultural unit, due to the degree of geographical and spatial separation . 9. An ‘agricultural unit ’ is defined in Part 6 of the GPDO , paragraph D.1 , as ‘ agricultural land which is occupied as a unit for the purposes of agriculture ’. 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 conditions set out under Part 6, Class A of the GPDO, t he scheme constitutes permitted development. Appeal Decision APP/P3040/W/26/3377271 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 Siting, design and external appearance 11. The proposed development would be sited in a field adjoining Brook Lane containing groups of trees . An area of trees separates it from Melton Road . A dditional tree planting between the building and Brook Lane forms part of the submitted details . 12. The building would, therefore, be seen amongst , and largely screened from public views by, trees . It would have a functional appearance and external materials that are consistent with agricultural buildings within the r ural character of its surroundings. Consequently, the proposed development would be unlikely to draw attention and would not appear as a dominant or incongruous addition to the landscape. 13. For the above reasons, I conclude that the siting, design and external appearance of the proposed building would be acceptable. Prior approval should therefore be granted. Conclusion 14. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and prior approval should be granted. Elaine Moulton INSPECTOR⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
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, …
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3376692 (Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area *) — 2026-05-29
📍 Buckinghamshire Council - South Bucks Area * LPA code: E07000006 PINS reference: 3376692 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 24 March 2026 by M Chalk BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 Boveney Court Farm , Boveney Road, Dorney, W indsor , Buckinghamshire, SL4 6QG • 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 [outline] planning permission • The appeal is made by Eton College against Buckinghamshire Council. • The application Ref is PL/25/0354/FA. • The development proposed is d emolition of open sided barn, conversion, alteration and change of use of existing buildings from Use Class B8 to Use Class C3 to provide 7 residential units and construction of 5 new residential units, to provide a total of 12 residential units (2 x 2 bedroom; 6 x 3 bedroom; and 4 x 4 bedroom) including hard and soft landscaping, attenuation pond, bin and cycle stores, car parking, infrastructure and associated works. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for d emolition of open sided barn, conversion, alteration and change of use of existing buildings from Use Class B8 to Use Class C3 to provide 7 residential units and construction of 5 new residential units, to provide a total of 12 residential units (2 x 2 bed room; 6 x 3 bedroom; and 4 x 4 bedroom) including hard and soft landscaping, attenuation pond, bin and cycle stores, car parking, infrastructure and associated works at Boveney Court Farm , Boveney Road, Dorney, Windsor, Buckinghamshire, SL4 6QG in accordan ce with the terms of the application, Ref PL/25/0354/FA and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Applications for costs 2. An application for costs was made by Eton College against the council. This application is the subject of a separate decision. Preliminary Matters 3. The appeal proposal is functionally unchanged from that previously dismissed on appeal in July 2024 1 . Since that time additional information has been provided in relation to the effect on bats or other protected and important species. 4. The site is in the Green Belt. In determining the previous appeal on this site in July 2024 the Inspector found that the proposal was not inappropriate development as it comprised the redevelopment of previously developed land which would not cause substan tial harm to openness. That appeal was assessed against the December 2023 National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) , but the most recent Framework update in December 2024 contains essentially the same exception to what constitutes inappropriate de velopment at paragraph 154(g). 1 PINS ref: APP/N0410/W/23/3335905 Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 There are no changes to the scale or siting of the proposed development from that earlier decision. It would be contained principally within the bounds of the existing built form and hardstanding within the site. While there would be some loss of openness from the new houses due to their siting and height, I agree with my colleague that this would amount to no more than moderate harm. Consequently, the proposal would accord with the exception at paragraph 154(g) of the Framework. 5. Like cases should be determined in like manner, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the December 2024 revisions to the Framework state at paragraph 156 that major housing development in the Green Belt should provide affordable housing that reflects local or national policy , necessary improvements to local or national infrastructure, and the provision of new, or improvements to existing, green spaces that are accessible to the public. These are known as the Golden Rules and are a material consideration in the determination of this appeal . 6. A separate application for listed building consent 2 was submitted to the council for works to a Grade II listed barn on the site. Consent was granted in September 2025 for those works , and therefore this is not a consideration in this appeal . Main Issues 7. There is no dispute between the main parties about the proposed improvements to local infrastructure. The main issues are therefore : • Whether the appeal proposal would provide sufficient affordable housing , • Whether it would make acceptable provision of open space , • The effect of the proposal on protected and important species and habitats, with particular regard to bats ; and, • Given local concerns about safe access in the event of flooding, I have also elevated this to a main issue having sought the views of the main parties . Reasons Affordable housing 8. The Framework states that major housing development in this location must contribute 50% affordable housing . National Planning Practice Guidance states that for development which is subject to the Golden Rules a site specific viability assessment should not be undertaken for the purpose of reducing developer contributions, including affordable housing. It is not disputed that the development would not provide 50% affordable housing , with a contribution equating to 21% towards offsite housing instead proposed. 9. Co r e Policy 3 of the South Bucks Core Strategy require s at least 40% in schemes of 5 units and above to be affordable . The policy allow s both for off - site provision and for a lower contribution where it is clearly demonstrated that this is not economically viable. The appeal proposal does not therefore conflict with Core 2 Council ref: PL/25/0355/HB Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 Policy 3, as the council have accepted that a fully compliant scheme would not be economically viable. 10. Nonetheless, the development would fail to provide sufficient affordable housing , contrary to the Framework. Open space 11. The Framework further requires that the development provide new green spaces that are accessible to the public, or improvements to the same. The council have identified a requirement for 0.11 hectares of open space to be provided as part of this development, including a Local Area of Play of at least 100 square metres. The appellant does not dispute this requirement. 12. N o public open space would be provided as part of the development. Furthermore, no contributions are included in the submitted unilateral undertaking towards the improvement of existing public green space. 13. Consequently, the development would also fail to make acceptable provision for open space, contrary to the requirements of the Framework. Bats and protected species 14. The previous appeal on this site was dismissed as the Inspector found that the bat surveys for the site were out of date and therefore it was unlikely that Natural England would grant a mitigation licence for the proposed works . S ubsequently new surveys have been conducted which provide an updated position statement for bats on the site. 15. I have had regard to my duties under Regulations 9(1) and 9(3) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 in relation to nature conservation. In this instance the presence of bats within the buildings has been established by the provided surveys. These have been reviewed by Natural England alongside their grant of a licence for works to a neighbouring building. Natural England ha s indicated that it would likely accept the mitigation methods described. 16. The council’s ecology consultee has also reviewed the additional information and advised that the development would be acceptable, subject to conditions. C onditions securing suitable care and mitigation measures are set out in the attached schedule. The proposed mitigation measures would minimise the disturbance to bats from a development that would deliver new housing in a district where there is a recognised shortfall of housing land through the redevelopment of redundant buildings . The development would therefore successfully meet the tests for receiv ing a European protected species licence from Natural England, subject to compliance with the proposed conditions . T here would consequently be no unacceptable impacts to bats arising from the proposed development. 17. The appeal proposal would therefore accord with Core Policy 9 of the Core Strategy, which requires biodiversity resources to be conserved and enhanced. Flooding 18. The appeal site lies within Flood Zones 2 and 3. A flood risk assessment has been provided . While not a concern raised by the council or its internal consultees, there Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 is public interest in the possibility of flooding causing a loss of access from the appeal site. The Environment Agency noted in a consultation response that the development would result in a situation of d anger to m ost people in the event of flooding with a danger of loss of life for the general public . The main parties’ comments were sought on this point . 19. The appeal site lies between the River Thames and the Jubilee River. This latter watercourse was constructed as a flood relief channel for the River Thames. However, subsequent flooding has shown that the design of the Jubilee River was inadequate to handle higher levels of overflow. Residents and the Parish Council have therefore expressed concerns that in the event of further flooding occupiers of the proposed houses would be at risk due to being unable to evacuate. 20. F looding of a scale that would affect access to the appeal site would occur in a 1 in 100 flood event. Such an event would affect the wider Thames Valley, and any effect on the access to the site would be preceded by several days of flood effects in the wider area. This would provide advance warning to residents of a potential need to evacuate , with updates available should the water level continue to rise. 21. The risk to residents of being unable to evacuate is therefore slight , considering the slim possibility of a flood event of sufficient magnitude occurring and the considerable lead time before the evacuation route would be affected . Paragraph 181 of the Framework states that in areas at risk of flooding development should only be allowed where, amongst other considerations, safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate. Given the low level of risk, the development would accord with this requi rement. Other Matters 22. The appeal site lies within the Boveney Conservation Area , and I have a duty to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving its character or appearance . There is also a Grade II listed building on the site, identified as building B on the submitted plans , and I must have special regard to the desirability of preserving its setting . The Conservation A rea is characterised by scattered properties of varying ages set in spacious gardens and other open spaces. The listed building is a 17th or 18th century timber - framed building finished partly in weatherboarding and with a tiled roof. The farmyard provides the setting within which the barn is principally experienced . In determining the previous appeal on this site my colleague concluded that the proposal would result in a slight enhancement to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The appeal proposal is identical to that scheme, and there is no evidence before me to lead me to find otherwise. It would also therefore preserve the setting of the listed building. 23. The development has been proposed despite concerns over its viability. However, a contribution towards affordable housing would be provided and the unilateral undertaking allows for a further viability review as part of the development . This could secure additional revenue if the return on the development exceeds that which is expected . It also secures contributions towards the provision of NHS services. I see no reason to doubt that the contributions would be used as identified in the undertaking. The council has asked for the undertaking to be varied to take account of different figures . However, given the lack of viability of the development I am content that the undertaking as submitted is acceptable . Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 24. My attention has been drawn to a recent decision made by the council to refuse permission for the residential redevelopment of a site elsewhere in Dorney . I note that this other development was found to fail the sequential test for flooding and the site was found to not be in a sustainable location . Given these significant differences the council’s decision does not lead me to alter my 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 of consultees on the matter of flood risk. However, i t is not within the scope of this appeal to address th ese concerns . 28. The site is located outside the built - up areas of the surrounding settlements. Occupiers would be dependent to an extent on private vehicles but no more so than those in neighbouring properties, and there are some amenities in the nearby settlements within walking or cycling distance. While the road into the main built - up area of Dorney does not have a footpath along it, it is fairly wide and visibility along it is good. I am therefore satisfied that the site is not an unsustainable location for residential development. 29. The development makes provision for wildlife habitats which would be secured by condition. This is supported by the council, and there is no detailed evidence before me to suggest that such measures would not be effective. The construction environmental management plan would detail the existing biodiversity features of the site, a nd explain how harm would be avoided during construction. Planning balance 30. The appeal proposal would not comply with the Golden Rules set out in the Framework for major housing development in the Green Belt. As the proposal complies with one of the exceptions set out in paragraph 154 of the Framework this would not make it inappr opriate development in the Green Belt, but a failure to comply does weigh against the proposal. 31. The council can only demonstrate a housing land supply o f 0.91 years, which is an acute shortfall against the minimum requirement of 5 years. Accordingly, planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 32. The development would make a contribution towards affordable housing , albeit not a policy - compliant one. The shortfall therefore attracts moderate negative weight in the overall balance. 33. The appeal site is next to Dor n ey Common , a large area of public green space. Given the proximity to existing public space t he lack of provision of , or contribution to, public space therefore also attracts moderate weight against the proposal . 34. G iven the council’s housing land supply position, the harm arising from the failure to comply with the Golden Rules would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the considerable benefits that wo uld result from the proposed development. Planning permission should therefore be granted. Conditions 35. The council has recommended conditions . I have considered these against national planning practice guidance and, where necessary, amended the wording . 36. I have imposed conditions relating to the commencement of development (1) and confirming the approved plans (2) for the sake of certainty. I have omitted from the list of approved plans those which are not to scale as these are informative but cannot be considered enforceable. 37. Conditions requiring the approval of materials (3) and compliance with the approved arboricultural method statement (4) are reasonable to secure an acceptable finished appearance for the development. 38. Conditions 5, 6 and 7 ensure that development does not proceed on site if the land is found to be contaminated unless that contamination is remediated . Conditions 8 and 9 secure the access to and within the site, together with parking. Condition 10 ensures that reasonable archaeological investigat i ons are carried out on site as part of the approved development. 39. Conditions 11 to 15 would prevent any undue effect to biodiversity from the development and provide certainty about the protection of bats in particular. 40. Flood risk at the site and surface water management would be controlled by c onditions 16 to 20 . These would include compliance with the submitted flood risk assessment, agreement of a flood risk management plan which would include evacuation plans and information for future occupiers , agreement of surface water management measures and agreement of details of maintenance for the site’s drainage system. 41. A condition requiring that obscured glazing be fitted to windows in Units C and D that face onto a shared boundary (2 1 ) is reasonable to prevent loss of privacy to the neighbouring occupiers. C onclusion 42. For the reasons set out above the appeal is allowed. M Chalk INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 Schedule of planning 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 drawing nos : 5540 - 1100 - REV - I Proposed Residential Development Location Plan 5540 - 1101 - REV - E Existing Site Block Plan 5540 - 1102 - REV - K Proposed Site Block Plans 5540 - 1103 - REV - H Development Footprint Comparison Plan and Table 5540 - 1104 - REV - E Lighting Strategy 5540 - 1200 - REV - E Existing Plans – Unit B 5540 - 1201 - REV - E Existing Plans – Units C,D,E,F1,F2 and G 5540 - 1202 - REV - D Existing Roof Plan – Units C,D,E,F1,F2 and G 5540 - 1210 - REV - H Proposed Plans – Unit B 5540 - 1211 - REV - H Proposed Plans – Units C,D,E,F1,F2,G 5540 - 1212 - REV - H Proposed Plan – Units H - J and K - L - M 5540 - 1213 - REV - E Proposed Roof Plans – Units C,D,E,F1,F1 and G 5540 - 1233 - REV - E Ground Floor Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit B 5540 - 1234 - REV - D First Floor Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit B 5540 - 1235 - REV - D Roof Demolition Plan and Current Condition Unit B 5540 - 1236 - REV - E Ground Floor Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit C and D 5540 - 1237 - REV - D Roof Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit C and D 5540 - 1238 - REV - D Ground Floor Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit E 5540 - 1239 - REV - D Roof Demolition Plan and Current Condition – Unit E 5540 - 1240 Existing Open Sided Barn – To Be Demolished 5540 - 1301 - REV - B Existing Elevations and Section – Unit B 5540 - 1302 - REV - C Existing Elevation and Section s – Units C,D,E,F1,F2,G 5540 - 1303 - REV - D Existing Elevations and Sections – Unit C,D,E,F1,F2,G 5540 - 1311 - REV - D Proposed Elevations and Sections – Unit B 5540 - 1312 - REV - G Proposed Elevations – Units C,D,E,F1,F2,G (1/2) 5540 - 1313 - REV - H Proposed Elevations – Units C,D,E,F1,F2,G (2/2) and Sections 5540 - 1314 - REV - F Proposed Elevations and Section – Units H – J 5540 - 1315 - REV - H Proposed Strip Elevations 5540 - 1320 - REV - A Proposed Elevations and Sections – Units K - L - M 5540 - 1321 Proposed Bin Store Floor Plans and Elevations 5540 - 1322 - REV - A Existing and Proposed Strip Elevations 5540 - 1335 - REV - A External Current Condition and Demolitions - Unit B 5540 - 1336 - REV - B Internal Current Condi tion – Unit B 5540 - 1337 - REV - A Externals Current Condition and Demolition – Units C - D - E 5540 - 1338 - REV - A Externals Current Condition and Demolition – Units C - D - E 5540 - 1355 - REV - B Unit B – Elevations as Proposed 5540 - 1356 - REV - B Unit B – Sections as Proposed 5540 - 1357 - REV - B Units C - D - E – Front and Rear Elevations as Proposed 5540 - 1358 - REV - B Units C - D - E – Side Elevations as Proposed 5540 - 1401 - REV - C Barn B – Proposed Typical Section and Details 5540 - 1402 Units C & D – Proposed Typical Section Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 5540 - 1403 Unit E – Proposed Typical Section 5540 - 1404 - REV - C Barn B – Proposed Typical Connection Detail 5540 - 1405 - REV - A Barns C & D – Typical Conservation Roof light Detail 20102 - SFK - B - GF - DR - S - 0100 T1 Barn B Plans, Section and Elevations as Existing 20102 - SFK - B - XX - DR - S - 0200 T2 Barn B Demolition 20102 - SFK - B - GF - DR - S - 0300 T1 Barn B Ground Floor Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - B - 1 F - DR - S - 0301 T2 Barn B First Floor Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - B - R - DR - S - 0302 T2 Barn B Roof Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - B - XX - DR - S - 0303 T1 Barn B Section as Proposed 20102 - SFK - B - XX - DR - S - 0304 T2 Barn B Steelwork Plan and Details 20102 - SFK - A - XX - DR - S - 0407 Rev B Detail 7 20102 - SFK - B - XX - DR - S - 0411 Rev B Detail 11 – Rafter Repairs 20102 - SFK - CDE - GF - DR - S - 0300 P1 Buildings C, D & E Ground Floor Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - CDE - GF - DR - S - 0301 P1 Buildings C, D & E First Floor Plan as Proposed 20102 - SFK - Gen - XX - DR - S - 0412 Detail 12 – Wall / Soleplate Repairs 3) Prior to any works above ground floor slab level, a detailed schedule of works and materials to be used to for the development shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority . The details to be submitted shall include the following: a) Elevational materials to be used on existing and proposed buildings; b) Matching brick bond to plinth of listed building and mortar mix; c) All internal and external new joinery details (doors and windows) at an appropriate scale, including sections and glazing bars; d) Details of contemporary glass framing system; e) Details of insulation to be provided for listed building and curtilage listed buildings; f) Metal rainwater goods; g) Details of roof lights and lanterns h) Details of hard surfacing to be used throughout the site i) Details of any new external flues, vents, grills, or external pipework The development shall thereafter proceed in accordance with the approved details. 4) The development shall be implemented in accordance with the document titled Tree c ondition s urvey, Arboricultural Implications Assessment a nd p rotection r ecommendations w ith descriptions of landscape enhancements dated 7 January 2025 , and the plans contained within it , submitted and approved as part of the planning application . The works shall be carried out under the supervision of a retained arboricultural specialist to ensure that the phasing of the development accords with the stages detailed in the method statement , and that the correct materials and techniques are employed. Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 5) Prior to any below ground works commencing on site , the following components of a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site shall each be submitted to and approved, in writing, by the local planning authority: i) A site investigation, based on the Phase 1 Ground Condition Assessment prepared by Stantec and dated January 2025 , to provide information for a detailed assessment of the risk to all receptors that may be affected, including those off site. This should include an assessment of the potential risks to: human health, property (existing or proposed) including buildings, crops, pests, woodland and service lines and pipes, adjoining land, ground waters and surface waters, ecological systems, archaeological sit es and ancient monuments. ii) The site investigation results and the detailed risk assessment (i) and, based on these, an options appraisal and remediation strategy giving full details of the remediation measures required and how they are to be undertaken. iii) A verification plan providing details of the data that will be collected in order to demonstrate that the works set out in (ii) are complete and identifying any requirements for longer term monitoring of pollutant linkages, maintenance and arrangement s for contingency action. Any changes to these components require the express consent of the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented as approved. 6) Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme and prior to the first use or occupation of the development, a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced together w ith any necessary monitoring and maintenance programme and copies of any waste transfer notes relating to exported and imported soils shall be submitted to the local planning authority for approval. The approved monitoring and maintenance programme shall b e implemented and continued in accordance with the approved details . 7) Any contamination that is found during the course of construction of the development hereby permitted that was not previously identified shall be reported immediately to the local planning authority. Development on the part of the site affected shall be su spended until a risk assessment has been carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Where unacceptable risks are found, the development shall not resume or continue until remediation and verification schemes have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. 8) No part of the approved development shall be occupied until the existing means of access has been sited and laid out in general accordance with the approved drawing and constructed in accordance with the Buckinghamshire Council guide note "Commercial Vehicular Access Within the P ublic Highway". 9) The scheme for parking, garaging and manoeuvring indicated on the submitted plans shall be laid out prior to the initial occupation of the development hereby permitted and that area shall be retained thereafter. 10) No development shall take place until the applicant, or their agents or successors in title, have undertaken a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation , including details of how any findings shall be recorded, which has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 11) The development shall not commence until a Habitat Management and Monitoring Plan (the HMMP), prepared in accordance with the approved biodiversity metric calculation and its supporting documents , has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The HMMP shall include : (a) a non - technical summary; (b) the roles and responsibilities of the people or organisation(s) delivering the HMMP; (c) the planned habitat creation and enhancement works to create or improve habitat to achieve the biodiversity net gain in accordance with the approved metric ; (d) the management measures to maintain habitat in accordance with the approved biodiversity metric calculation for a period of 30 years from the completion of development has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The created and/or enhanced habitat specified in the approved HMMP shall be managed and maintained in accordance with the approved HMMP. 12) Prior to the commencement of development above ground level, an ecological enhancements scheme to detail bat roost replacement features, such as bat boxes, bat tiles/access features and bat lofts, swift boxes and sparrow boxes, reptile hibernacula/log pile s, stag beetle log piles, wildlife kerbs, and gaps at ground level of boundary fences for the movement of hedgehogs, shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The development shall proceed in accordance with the ecological enhancements, which shall be installed prior to the first occupation of the development and retained thereafter. 13) Before any construction works hereby approved are commenced, a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) detailing, in full, measures to protect existing habitat during construction works and to safeguard protected and notable species, shall be sub mitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The CEMP should be completed in accordance with the British Standard on Biodiversity BS 42020:2013 with these details below: a) Details of what biodiversity features could be impacted on and what development activities could be potentially damaging; b) A rolling timetable of when and where specific measures to avoid / reduce impacts are to be carried out including any seasonal or legal implications (e.g. the bird nesting season) and who is responsible; c) Details of method statements for specific biodiversity issues (e.g. for specific destructive activities such as: vegetation clearance, hedgerow removal, tree felling, soil stripping and building demolition); d) Identify all practical measures (e.g. fencing, protective barriers and warning signs) and sensitive working practices to avoid impacts; e) Details of inspections to ensure wildlife do not become trapped in excavations or machinery; f) Details of other responsible person and lines of communication on - site in relation to the implementation of the CEMP; Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 g) Details of contingency measures in the event of an accident or other potentially damaging incident (e.g. pollution incidents; how to deal with previously unrecorded protected species found during construction and restoration; unexpected bad weather; rep air of damaged features etc.); h) Details of procedures to avoid pollution incidents (e.g. from fuel spills and site run - off based on an understanding of the wildlife interest at risk); i) Regular review of the implementation of CEMP throughout the construction / restoration phase to monitor effectiveness of mitigation measures and compliance with legal, planning and/or contractual requirements; j) Details of biosecurity protocols / method statements to prevent spread of non - native species; k) Temporary management of existing wildlife features during construction / implementation. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 14) Prior to occupation, a "lighting design strategy for biodiversity" shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The strategy shall: a) identify those areas/features on site that are particularly sensitive for bats and that are likely to cause disturbance in or around their breeding sites and resting places or along important routes used to access key areas of their territory, for examp le, for foraging; and b) show how and where external lighting will be installed (through the provision of appropriate lighting contour plans and technical specifications) so that it can be clearly demonstrated that areas to be lit will not disturb or prevent the above species u sing their territory or having access to their breeding sites and resting places. All external lighting shall be installed in accordance with the specifications and locations set out in the strategy, and these shall be maintained thereafter in accordance with the strategy. Under no circumstances should any other external lighting be ins talled without prior consent from the local planning authority. 15) The development shall be implemented in strict accordance with the agreed reptile mitigation plan (Re ptile Mitigation Strategy, Davidson Watts - Ecology, 12 January 2023). 16) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Flood Risk Assessment (reference 332612015, dated January 2025 by Stantec) , Stantec letter dated 7 May 2025, reference Project/File: J:32612015 Boveney Court Farm and the Stantec Technical Note dated March 2026 , including the following mitigation measures: • Finished floor levels shall be set no lower than 21.49 metres above Ordnance Datum (AOD) • Compensatory storage shall be provided as set out in Stantec Drawing 49209/4001/002, Revision C named 'Floodplain Storage Analysis' 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 de velopment. Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 17) No works (other than demolition) shall begin until a Flood Risk Management Plan based on the draft submitted with the March 2026 Stantec Technical Note has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development shall thereafter proceed in accordance with the approved Ma nagement Plan. 18) Prior to the commencement of development above ground level a scheme showing details of boundary treatment within the 1% annual exceedance probability plus 35% allowance for climate change floodplain, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The boundary treatment shall be permeable to floodwater. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained, in accordance with the scheme's timing/phasing arrangements. 19) No works (other than demolition) shall begin until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on the Location Plan (drawing no. 1100, rev. I , Phase 1 Ground Condition Assessment prepared by Stantec and dated January 2025 . Flood Risk Assessment (332612015, 07 February 2025, Stantec) , Surface Water Drainage Strategy (332612015/100/DSR, 07 February 2025, Stantec) and Response to LLFA Surface Water Drainage Strategy Comments (332612015/RMF/EE - PL/25/0354/FA, 07 May 2025, Stantec) has been submitted to a nd approved in writing by the local planning authority . The scheme shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed. The scheme shall also include: • Assessment of SuDS components as listed in the CIRIA SuDS Manual (C753) and provide justification for exclusion if necessary • Demonstrate that water quality, ecological and amenity benefits have been considered • Water quality assessment demonstrating that the total pollution mitigation index equals or exceeds the pollution hazard index; priority should be given to above ground SuDS components • Undertake the clearance of overgrown vegetation within the second length of ditch to ensure water can flow unimpeded • Discharge from the site should be limited to 4.3l/s • Ground investigations including: • Infiltration in accordance with BRE365 • Groundwater level monitoring over the winter period (from November until April) • Subject to ground investigations demonstrating that infiltration is viable, the applicant shall amend the surface water drainage scheme to dispose of surface water runoff via infiltration • SuDS components agreed within the Proposed Surface Water Drainage Layout (drawing no. 49209/4001/003, rev. B) • Full construction details of all SuDS and drainage components • Detailed drainage layout with pipe numbers, gradients, and pipe sizes complete, together with storage volumes of all SuDS components Appeal Decision APP/N0410/W/25/3376692 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 • Calculations to demonstrate that the proposed drainage system can contain up to the 1 in 30 storm event without flooding. Any onsite flooding between the 1 in 30 and the 1 in 100 plus climate change storm event should be safely contained on site • Details of proposed overland flood flow routes in the event of system exceedance or failure, with demonstration that such flows can be appropriately managed on site without increasing flood risk to occupants, or to adjacent or downstream sites 20) Prior to the occupation of the development a whole - life maintenance plan for the site must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The plan shall set out how and when to maintain the full drainage system (e.g. a maintenance schedule for each drainage/SuDS component), with details of who is to be responsible for carrying out the maintenance. The plan shall also include as as - built dr awings and/or photographic evidence of the drainage scheme carried out by a suitably qualified person. The plan shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 21) Prior to first occupation of the dwellings identified as Units C and D on drawing referenc e 5540 - 1211 - REV - H t he ground floor windows in those dwellings marked as HL on that drawing shall be fitted with obscured glazing in accordance with d etails submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning . O nce installed the obscured glazing shall be retained thereafter. End of schedule⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
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…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3375121 (Durham County Council) — 2026-05-29
📍 Durham County Council LPA code: E06000047 PINS reference: 3375121 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision No site visit undertaken by A Edgington BSc (Hons) MA CMLI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 th May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/X1355/W/25/3375121 The Bridge Inn, Whorlton, B arnard Castle DL 12 8XD • 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 Geo A Carter Ltd against the decision of Durham County Council. • The application Ref is DM/24/02793/FPA. • The development proposed is Change of use from public house to 1no. residential dwelling and erection of gate. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for c hange of use from public house to 1no. residential dwelling and erection of gate at The Bridge Inn, B arnard Castle DL12 8XD in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref DM/24/02793/FPA, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Applications for costs 2. The appellant has made an application for an award of costs. That is the subject of a separate decision. Preliminary Matters 3. The Council’s reasons for refusal refer to Policy 6 f) of the County Durham Plan (CDP) . However, there is no apparent conflict with criterion f) in the officer’s report and the Council’s statement refers to criterion g). I conclude that th ere is a typographical error on the Council’s decision . C onsequently , I have focussed my reasoning on the conflict with CDP Policy 6 g). 4. The Bridge Inn (the Inn) w as nominated as an asset of community value in 2016. This listing expire d after five years and the Inn has not been re - listed. That former designation carries no weight in my reasoning. 5. I agreed with the parties prior to determination of the appeal that a site visit was not necessary . Main Issues 6. The main issue is whether the change of use of the Grade II listed Bridge Inn accords with local policy and national guidance , with particular regard to viability . Appeal Decision APP/X1355/W/25/3375121 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Reasons Background 7. The Inn is a period and listed stone building located in the small rural settlement of Whorlton , a few miles to the south - east of Barnard Castle. The officer report sets out that there have been five different tenants since 2006 , and t he Inn has been closed for business since November 2023 . E ach tenancy has ended early and with the tenants in debt . Moreover, there have been periods of vacancy between each of those tenanc ies . 8. In July 2019 the nearby Whorlton Bridge , which provides the most direct link to the A66 to the south, was closed . At the time the Council expected it to be closed for around a year. In the summer of 2019 , the then te nant had had tenure since 2014, and had explored options such as bed and breakfast (B & B) and varied food offerings. Nonetheless, in September 2019 that tenant stated that the Inn’s takings had dropped by about 50 per cent and that the Inn would close. 9. The tenant attributed the loss of revenue to the closure of the bridge , which remains closed nearly seven years later. However, there are no financial records available to me to support th at assertion . As such I give th e argument that there is direct link between revenue , the termination of the tenancy and the bridge closure , limited weight. There has been another tenant since the bridge closure , but that tenancy lasted only two years . However, as noted above, there has been a history of short tenancies si nce 2006. 10. Shortly after the closure of the bridge, it appears that the appellant applied to convert the Inn ’s annexe to residential use. The reasoning put to the Council included the argument that a reduction in the Inn’s floorspace would reduce overheads and make the Inn a better business proposition . Releas ing capital from residential use would also enable upgrading work to the remaining area s of the I nn, and make the future business more manageable. I see no reason to conclude that the 2019 Viability Report (2019 VR) and its recommendations were not submitted in good faith . 11. The Council gave permission for the conversion, but raised a concern in relation to residential amenity sufficient to impose a condition prohibit ing the residential u se of the first floor of the Inn by anyone other than the tenant or persons involved in the management of the Inn 1 . The annexe has now been sold and is a separate planning unit. Viability 12. CDP Policy 6 g) states that development on unallocated sites will be p ermitted if it does not result in the loss of a settlem ent’s valued facil i ties or ser v ices , unless it has been demonstrated that they are no longer viable. The accompanying text states that to demo nstrate that a facility is not viable, evidence must be provided t h at the premises has been advertised as a going concern at least four times within a six month period and all reasonable offers explored. The evidence will be considered on a case by case basis. Policy W P6 of the Neighbourhood Plan (NP) states that existing amenities will be protected and all aven ues explored for their retention. 1 DM/19/03212/FPA Appeal Decision APP/X1355/W/25/3375121 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 13. Both policies predate the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and in that regard the weight given to those policies shall be commensurate with their consistency with the Framework , in line with Paragraph 232 of that guidance. 14. At application the Council’s Spatial Policy team recommended that the Inn be marketed freehold for a period of three mo n ths to demonstrate that it is no longer viable. It was marketed as a rental property between December 2023 and October 2024, and has been marketed for sale since March 2025. Although there have been a few viewings, none has proceeded further. I see no reason to conclude that the tests for viability set out in CDP Policy 6 g) have not been met . Moreover, the Council’s evidence confirms that the y have. 15. Moreover, the appellant’s evidence includes the assessment s which have informed the valuations , and those figures are not disputed by the Council. In any case, i rrespective of the bridge closure, the tenancy turnover and periods of vacancy before July 2019 suggest that the re were issues with the profitability of the business model well before that date. 16. The Council notes that there has been inconsistency in the appellant’s arguments regarding viability , as the reduction in floorspace, used to support the 2019 application to convert the annexe, now limits further opportunities for diversification. However, although the 2019 Viability Report ( 2019 VR) sets out that there would be three bedrooms available for paying guests, t hat subsequent permission restricts residential use of the Inn ’s first floor for anyone other than the tenant or other manager . The prov ision of visitor accommodation was not a determinative factor in the granting of that permission. 17. Moreover the 2024 Viability Report (2024 VR) identifies issues with security and a lack of separation between potential l ettable rooms and the landlord’s accommodat ion . There are two sets of floor plans in the evidence which are inconsistent with each ot her with regard to room size and proportions. Nonetheless, it is apparent that using any rooms on the first floor for visitors would restrict the tenant’s options for living accommodation . The 2024 VR also s uggests that using the Inn for visitors would result in the tenant having to seek separate accommodation, which would incur additional cost. 18. The 2019 VR states that ‘ the leasehold market continues to reflect the difficulty in identifying tenants who have funding as well as the ability to operate a business, especially one which is in a rural location and food - led . I agree with the appellant that since 2019 there has been a succession of global economic shocks, which could not have been foreseen, and which are likely to have an adverse effect on the hospitality industry to a greater or lesser extent. In any case, even if there has been a failure to pursue other opportunities since 2019, in the absence of any enforcement mechanism, this carries no weight in the determination of th is appeal. 19. Underlying trends are also identified in the 2024 VR which notes an ongoing decrease in wet sales which pre - dates the pandemic, as well as an increasing tendency for small public houses, including the Inn during its last tenanted period , to open on a part - time basis to maintain profitability. 20. The last tenancy, of two years duration, may reflect a harsh economic reality. Although the highway authority notes that around 300 veh icles crossed the bridge daily before it closed, there is nothing before me t o indicate ho w many of those vehicles were carrying customers , or at what times . There is no certainty the Appeal Decision APP/X1355/W/25/3375121 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 bridge’s reopening would support a new business model. In any case, although there is no direct link southwards from Whorlton to the A66, there are other bridges not too far away . I find the weight given by the Council and the community objectors to the bridge closure in relation to the Inn’s viability , to be overstated and unsupported by any evidence . 21. Moreover, the reopening of the bridge , originally scheduled for 2020, has been repeatedly postponed . The appellant is losing rent , has had a listed period building to maintain and has sustained high costs associated with tenancy turnover for the last twenty years . Even if I agreed that the bridge closure is directly responsible for the inability for the Inn to operate as a viable business, i t seems unrealistic to expect any business to weather that kind of loss over such a long period without wishing to pu rsue a new business plan. 22. It is also unrealistic to suggest that the appellant has selected tenants who were not suited to the role and that this might have contributed to the lack of profitability. Tenants are a self - selecting group , and the appellant’s evidence clearly h ighlight s the difficulty of finding suitable candidates in the face of a changing customer base . Moreover, i t seems to me that th e B & B options were never particularly realistic . E ven if the residency condition was removed , the lettable rooms are directly above th e main ground floor rooms of the Inn . Although others might offer suggestions as to what different food offerings might attract visitors, the 2024 VR sets out the extensive range of food offerings and price ranges offered by the last tenant and states that the Inn received very good food reviews. In any case, it is up to the tenant to decide how to manage th e business and bring in sufficient revenue. 23. I appreciate that there is local support for a public house that contributes to village life as an informal drop - in . I also acknowl e dge that the village hall is not a like for like replacement . However, it remains that there is a licensed village hall , available for community events. The Inn is a primarily a business venture , albeit one which also makes a contribution to community life. However, its community function is wholly dependent on its viability. Whorlton Community Benefit Society 24. A local community group, the Whorlton Community Benefit Society (WCBS) explored purchasing or leasing the Inn and commissioned a surveyors’ report 2 in that regard. The valuation in June 2025 was £230,000, considerably less than the current price on the open market. 25. This report sets out marketing and turnover data for public houses in North Yorkshire which vary wildly in location, proximity to trunk roads, floor area and turnover. It is unclear what conclusions I am expected to reach from this information . Moreover, the report states that the Inn remains on the ACV listing , which is incorrect . 26. There are nonetheless two comparable situation s set out in this report . One is the marketing for the All Fours in nearby Ovington. Its floor area is smaller than the Inn, and it opens on a part - time basis. Nonetheless, this is being marketed at a freehold price of £295,000. T he report states that the Inn would be able to increase turnover to double that of the All Fours. However, the Inn was also opening on a part - time basis when last tenanted, as a means of reducing costs. Given the marketing price 2 Fleurets, June 2025 Appeal Decision APP/X1355/W/25/3375121 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 of £295,000 for the All Fours, it is unclear to me why the Inn is valued at only £230,000 in this report. 27. This report also sets out marketing details for The Bridgewater Arms at Winston, which is another village close to the River Tees and located between the A67 and the A66 trunk roads. This has a little more floor area than the Inn but has sold for £390,000. I agree with the appellant that these public houses are comparably located to the Inn , and likely to attract a similar customer base. There is a broad consistency in the price per square foot . A pplying that price per square foot to the Inn , results in a figure broadly similar to the price at which the Inn has been marketed by the appellant since 2025. As such I conclude that the price of £230,000 for purchase , or a concomitant rental price, would not reflect market value. Consequently , the WCBS’s arguments that the Inn is being marketed at an unrealistically high price , carry no weight in my reasoning. Conclusion – Financial Viability 28. I conclude that the re were issues with profitability l ong before the closure of the bridge or the conversion of the annexe. The proposed conversion accords with local policy and national guidance and consequently there is no conflict with CDP Policy 6 g) or WP6 with regard to the tests for viability and potential diversification options . I appreciate that Paragraphs 88d) , and 98 c) and d) of the Framework are concerned with the safeguarding of community facilities , but this is secondary to viability and in this case the required tests have been met. In any case, the policies cited are slightly more restrictive than the Framework with regard to the safeguarding of community facilities. Even had I found a degree of conflict with the local development plan , I would have given those policies less than full weight. H eritage 29. The Inn dates from the early 19 th century and is a handsome if somewhat pla in two - storey sandstone building , with a flat elevation and multi - paned sash windows , located in a prominent position on the main road through the village . Its significance arises from its intact historic fabric which is typical of period buildings in this rural area , and its social and communal value as a public house in a rural community. 30. The development would include internal works which have been granted listed building consent. Externally, the Council has raised a concern in relation to a proposed gate and section of wall , but has concluded that t hese concerns could be addressed through conditions. I see no reason to disagree. 31. The village is a collection of stone and largely period buildings set back from the road and arranged around a large village green. The Inn makes a highly positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area , and this would be unaffected in the event that the appeal is allowed. 32. The Inn is listed as such on the Historic England website . I acknowledge that there would be some minor loss of significance to the listed building and conservation area , with regard to its social and communal value . This amounts to less than substantial harm, at the lower end of the spectrum. However, without a viable use the building will deteriorate . Paragraph 215 of the Framework states that where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm, th at harm should be weighed against the pub lic benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, Appeal Decision APP/X1355/W/25/3375121 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 securing its optimum viable use. In this case , I conclude that the Inn’s optimum viable use is as a dwelling. 33. As such, the benefits arising from an ongoing viable use and the provision of a dwelling, as well as the ongoing maintenance of a listed building outweigh the reduction of significance and the loss of the Inn’s former community function. The minor conflict with S ections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 would be outweighed by public benefits. Other Matters 34. The Council has h ighted an appeal relating to The Pheasant Inn, Shropshire 3 where the Ins pector found that the owners had not made sufficient effort to explore diversification options. However , that appeal is of some age, the premises had a far greater floor area with more opportunities for diversification, and it is also in a different part of the country . The appeal was determined within a very different economic and legislative framework . As such it is not comparable to what is before me . Moreover, there is no evidence provided to support the Council’s assertion that it is still thriving as a business. 35. Interested parties have raised concerns that previous tenants were insufficiently vetted before being given the tenancy, or were in some way uns uitable . However, i t is unrealistic and unreasonable to pose hypothetical situation s in which other tenants might have made more of a success of running the Inn. I have no information with regard to the appellant’s personal or business circumstances but it is also unreasonable to suggest that they take over the running of the Inn directly . In any case , it seems highly u nlikely that tenants would not explore al l options for a higher turnover rather than lose their investment and the tena ncy . 36. The WCBS also sets out that the single two year tenancy since the bridge closure is insufficient time to trial diversification. However , this seems a reasonable period to me , particularly as the 2024 VR sets out that the tenancy benefited from significantly discounted rent . I acknowledge that there may be community owned public ho uses elsewhere . However, no examples are provided and in any case , there is no unused space at the Inn to dedicate to shops , social clubs or post offices. Moreover , the village has a village hall. Nor has the WCBS set out any detail of its own business model or information to support its contention that another landlord would find the operating profit acceptable. 37. The WCBS sets out that the appellant was obstructive to their attempts to pursue due diligence. I am unable to conclude either way in this regard , but it remains that the underlying dispute with the WCBS is based on the appellant’s valuation , and in this case , I am satisfied that that is reasonable. Whilst I acknowledge that the group has made a considerable effort to retain the Inn as a community facility, I do not find the appellant’ s valuations, or efforts to find a solution with the group , unreasonable. 38. My attention has also been drawn to an unsuccessful appeal for change of use at the Dog and Gun Inn, Auton Stile 4 . This was a retrospective application for a change of use from a public house to workspace and bar/restaurant/café/retail use. The appeal decision notes that it was in an accessible location with public transport 3 APP/L3245/A/13/2192177 4 APP/X1355/W/25/3359018 Appeal Decision APP/X1355/W/25/3375121 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 links and nearby shops, which suggests a very different locational context from what is before me. The premises was also operational. The appeal is not comparable to what is before me. 39. A great deal of weight has been given to the contention that when the bridge opens the Inn would be accessible to a far greater customer base and that this would radically change the Inn’s profitability . However , there are other bridges linking the A66 and the A67 , and the diversion required over the Tees does not seem too extensive to me. Moreover, some of the people who signed the petition appear to live in Barnard Castle or other villages, and would not be particularly affected by the bridge closure. I a ccept that there may be a loss of casual passing trade , but this has not been quantified . A large proportion of the vehicles crossing the bridge before closure are likely to be commuters and normal business journeys. 40. I appreciate that there is strong feeling locally r egarding the loss of the Inn as a public house. The argument is advanced that the valuations provided are too high, and that with a different operating model and lower rents, the Inn would be viable. However, on the basis of what is before me I am unable to agree. The Inn can only provide a community facility if it is a viable business. I am satisfied that that is no longer the case. Conditions 41. The Council has suggested conditions and where appropriate I have amended the text in line with best practice . I have imposed the standard time and drawings condition for the avoidance of doubt. Conditions are also imposed to ensure the proposed gate and a new section of stone wall are in keeping with the period property to safeguard the setting of the listed building , and the character and appearance of the conservation area. 42. The Council has suggested that the condition relating to the timber gate include the text ‘rece ived 24.10.2024’. I have two existing and proposed side elevation drawings before me, one titled superseded , and one which is annotated . There is nothing before me to indicate which was received on 24 October 2024. However, I have indicated in the condition that the approved drawing is annotated. 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 INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/X1355/W/25/3375121 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 SCHEDULE OF CONDITIONS 1. The development hereby permitted shall begin before the expiration of three years after the date of this permission. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried ou t in accordance with the following plans: Site Location Plan Existing and Prop osed Block Plan Existing and Pr op o sed Floor Plan Existing and Proposed Front Elevations Existing and Prop os ed Rear Elevation Existing and Proposed Side Elevation , ( with annotations identifying the existing and proposed gates and wall). 3. The proposed gate sh all in materials , dimensions and overall design, replicate the ‘ e xisting 5 bar timber gate ’ shown on the drawing Existing and Proposed Side Elevation . 4. The e xtended stone wall shall be formed using coursed random size natural stone with pointing to match the existing. N o development of the extension of the stone wall shall commence until a sample panel of the propos ed stone and pointing to be used in its cons truction has been erected on site and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved sam ple panel shall thereafter be retained for reference on site through out its construction and the develop ment shall be constructed in accordance w ith the approved sample panel.⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
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
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3373696 (South Oxfordshire District Council) — 2026-05-29
📍 South Oxfordshire District Council LPA code: E07000179 PINS reference: 3373696 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision s Inquiry Held on 31 March, 1 - 2 April , 8 - 9 April 2026 , closing in writing 7 May 2026 Site visit made on 2 April 2026 by M Shrigley BSc (Hons) MPlan MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 th Ma y 2026 Appeal A : APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696 Thames Farm , Reading Road , Lower Shiplake RG9 3PH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant p lanning permission . • The appeal is made b y Taylor Wimpey West London against the decision of South Oxfordshire District Council . • The application Ref P 24/S2642/FUL , dated 16 August 2024 , was refused by notice dated 16 July 2025 . • The development proposed is for engineering operations associated with ground stabilisation works . Appeal B : APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 Thames Farm , Reading Road , Lower Shiplake RG9 3PH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted . • The appeal is made by Taylor Wimpey W est London against the decision of South Oxfordshire District C ouncil. • The application Ref P24/S2652/S73 , dated 16 August 2024 , was refused by notice dated 18 July 2025 . • A pplication Ref P24/S2652/S73 sought variation of conditions 1 and 3 on application P19/S0245/RM (Reserved Matters for 95 dwellings (appearance, landscaping, scale and layout) pursuant to outline application P16/S0970/O) (as amended by plans and information received 9 January 2025, 17 February 2025, 14 March 2025 and 9 May 2025) . • The conditions in dispute ( conditions 1 and 3 ) state : (1) That the development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans . (3) T he landscaping scheme as shown on the approved plans shall be implemented in accordance with Landscape Management Plan CSA/4049/01 and thereafter be maintained in accordance with this Plan. In the event of any of the trees or shrubs so planted dying or being seriously damaged or destroyed within 5 years of the completion of the development, a new tree or shrub or equivalent number of trees or shrubs, as the case may be, of a species first approved by the Local Planning Authority, shall be planted and properly maintained in a position or positions first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. • The reasons given for the conditions are: (1) To secure proper planning of the area in accordance with Development Plan policies . (3) To help to assimilate the development into its surroundings in accordance with Policies CSEN1 and CSQ3 of the South Oxfordshire Core Strategy 2027 and Policies G2, C9 and D1 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 - 2035 . Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Appeal C : APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 Thames Farm , Reading Road , Lower Shiplake RG9 3PH • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against the refusal to grant consent subject to the conditions of consent , agreement or approval of details required by conditions of a planning permission . • The appeal is made by Taylor Wimpey West London against the decision of South Oxfordshire District Council. • The application r ef erence P24/S2651/DIS , dated 19 August 2024 , was refused by notice dated 18 July 2025. It sought approval of details pursuant to conditions 4 , 5, 8, 9 and 11 attached to planning permission P16/S0970/O . • The development proposed is for outline planning permission for up to 95 dwellings and associated public open space and landscaping. With means of access and strategic landscaping not reserved ( allowed at appeal 2 August 2017 as per appeal reference APP/Q3115/X/23/3325922) . • The condition in dispute is No. 11 which states that: No further development shall commence, beyond the access works already implemented, until a drainage strategy, detailing all on and off - site surface and foul drainage works, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. No discharge of foul or surface water from the site shall occur before the drainage strategy has been completed and brought into use. • The reasons given for applying the condition are to ensure the proper provision of surface water and foul water drainage and to ensure flooding and pollution is not exacerbated in the locality in accordance with policy EP4 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2011 - 2035. Decision s 1. Appeal A is allowed and planning permission is granted for engineering operations associated with ground stabilisation works in accordance with the terms of the application, r ef erence P24/S2642/FUL , dated 16 August 2024 , subject to the ‘Schedule of C onditions ’ set out at the end of this decision . 2. Appeal B is allowed and permission is granted for the variation of conditions 1 and 3 on application P19/S0245/RM (Reserved Matters for 95 dwellings (appearance, landscaping, scale and layout) pursuant to outline application P16/S0970/O) (as amended by plans and information received 9 January 2025, 17 February 2025, 14 March 2025 and 9 May 2025) in accordance with the terms of the application, reference P24/S2652/S73, dated 16 August 2024 , subject to the ‘Schedule of Conditions’ set out at the end of this decision. 3. Appeal C is allowed and condition discharge is granted in accordance with the terms of the application, reference P24/S2651/DIS , dated 19 August 2024 . Procedural Matters 4. The i nquiry concern s three linked appeals A, B and C , as described in the banner . South Oxfordshire District Council ( SODC ) agree that Appeal B is dependent on the outcome of both Appeal A and Appeal C, and that Appeal C is dependent on Appeal A. It therefore is necessary to assess some of the considerations arising in Appeal’s A and C first. 5. Based on the collective main issues and technical matters aired, which overlap, it is also appropriate to deal with all three appeal s together rather than as separate decision letters. Accounting for each of the individual Decision Notice grounds contested , I have further consolidated the agreed main issues to avoid unnecessary duplication in my reasoning. Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 6. I acknowledge t he planning application to amend the approved layout (P24/S2652/S73) if successful under Appeal B reduces the number of dwellings proposed from 95, which was the number approved under reserved matters, to 84 dwellings. The reduction is proposed by the appellant to accommodate a drainage basin, as part of its overall drainage strategy. 7. It is also pertinent to mention, i n May 2020 SODC approved a non - material amendment (P20/S0134/NM) to planning permission P16/S0970/O. This altered the wording of c ondition 11 so that it allowed for the provision of a vehicular access to the site prior to the submission and approval of the drainage strategy. 8. Although application P24/S2651/DIS sought acceptability of details for discharge of: c ondition 4 for vehicular accesses, footways, cycle ways, driveways and turning areas; c ondition 5 for construction management; c ondition 8 for landscape management; Condition 9 for a bat method statement; and c ondition 11 for a drainage strategy . Only c ondition 11 detail adequacy is dispute d by the main appeal parties. 9. Without prejudice to the outcome of the appeal s , it was agreed during proceedings that the appellant would be given until 2 4 April 2026 to produce a completed d eed of v ariation related to its overall case . A completed deed was subsequently received slightly beyond that timefram e ( 1 May) . However, it is legally binding and therefore informs my decision. Main Issue s 10. The main issue s relate to the following : • W hether it is sufficiently demonstrated that the proposed development would not pose unacceptable risk s to a local principal aquifer and public water abstraction having regard to stabilisation works , ground stability, pollution, drainage and flood ing (Appeal ’s A and B ) . • The acceptability of drainage strategy details for the discharge of c ondition 11 (Appeal C). • Deed of variation adequacy to secure associated affordable housing , infrastructure and mitigation (Appeal B) . Reasons Risk s to principal aquifer /public water abstraction from : (i) stabilisation works 11. During my site visit I could see the appeal land was predominantly an open grassed over field accessed from Reading Road, close to existing dwellings in the wider vicinity. 12. It is common ground the site falls within groundwater S ource P rotection Z one 1 (SPZ 1 ) of an underlying aquifer used for public water supply abstraction . I also note the site is within a Drinking Water Safeguard Zone for groundwater and surface water. The purpose of the la t ter designation by the E nvironment A gency (EA) is to protect raw water resources from further deterioration by pollution and to reduce the need for extra treatment by water companies. 13. Groundwater in SPZ1 (as the inner zone of the three main water protection zones) is most vulnerable to pollution given the proximity of the abstraction Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 point and the water’s intended use for human consumption. It is defined within the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 as one of the following: a) the area within 50 metres of a point where the groundwater is abstracted for domestic supply or food production purposes; b) the area where it t akes groundwater that is intended to be used to supply water for domestic or food production purposes up to 50 days to travel to the groundwater abstraction point. 14. G roundwater beneath the appeal site travels to the Harpsden Public Water Supply (PWS), approximately 130 metres or so away. From that point onwards abstracted water is treated using filtration and chlorination processes . Water then enters the domestic use supply system . 15. Unstable ground within the site boundary is underlain by the principal aquifer within the SPZ. SODC and Thames Farm Action Group (TFAG) as the Rule 6 Party both underscore the imperative of properly managing local water supply resources given water pathways with in the site boundary . Harpsden PWS contributing over one third of the potable supply for the Water Resource Zone. 16. SODC and TFAG combined contend it is not sufficiently demonstrated the engineering works tied to Appeal A could occur without posing unacceptable risks to the principal aquifer and to public water abstraction at Harpsden PWS. 17. The overarching contentions made by them is that the Hydrogeological Impact Assessment (HIA) does not provide sufficient information to properly gauge risk. Tied to that claim is that there is deficient information on: groundwater levels; the extent, number, and depth of solution features ; the nature of the hydraulic gradients between the site and the PWS; and the presence of any fast flow pathways. 18. The appellant’s HIA assessment is also subject to a long list of technical criticisms including but not limited to: an underestimation of potential for preferential pathways; downplayed potential for unaddressed void presence; solution pipes with superficial deposits are unpredictable; solutio n pipes can/do sometimes extend below the water table which the site is likely to contain; and that the aquifer itself is not identified as a receptor, based on the source, pathway, and receptor model. 19. Furthermore, it is alleged: chalk fracture width is underestimated as per the core recovery material in boreholes HF4 and HF5 ; related depth of grouting considerations required downplay hydrological connectivity between structured and unstructured chalk; that flow rates would be assisted by fractures and networks linked to voids; a nd that a detailed quantitative risk assessment should be undertaken for the proposed ground stabilisation works in view of these considerations . 20. With all those contentions in mind, I acknowledge t he u nderlying geological composition of the appeal site largely comprise s of superficial deposits of sand, gravel, clay and silt in different proportions, upper weathered chalk and then moderately weathered chalk. 21. Ground condition investigations reflect regional karstic features of : voids; deep solution features; and fracturing. The investigations imply there could well be rapid flow of groundwater and potential contaminants above and below the water table. Based on the evidence I cannot discount that situation completely. Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 22. The appeal technical evidence and arguments focu s on the presence of structure d and unstructured chalk deposits within the site . Th is is because the properties of chalk layers in the ground has led to solution pipe formation over time. The ground is consequently less stable because of these naturally occurring geological formations , particularly at the eastern side of the site . 23. S olution pipes are characterised to extend into structured chalk at roughly around 15 metres below ground level. Acknowledging some contain permeable superficial deposit material within them and may be hydrologically active or others being potentially waterfilled or air filled voids 1 . 24. TFAG broadly argue unstructured chalk layers present in the ground are characterised by high porosity . Fractures or discontinuities are recorded within those layers according to the appellant’s January 2023 borehole log investigations 2 . Whereas t he appellant’s expert witness ’s analysis is that structured chalk may have become putt ylike when mixed with clay and other substrate s over time limiting its permeability and potential for complete recovery in the cores . A s an explanation of the borehole log information recorded . 25. T he appellant’s evidence is credible that a naturally occurring meniscus crust forms a barrier within the solution pipes restricting permeability . A nd that some of the results could be affected by instances of no recovery in the sample cores obtained. Those circumstances offer me plausible explanations of why the borehole information in dispute is interpretated differently by the appellant. 26. Additionally, t he appeal evidence suggests that unstructured and structured chalk could be found together, and that fragments of the structured chalk could be found within the unstructured chalk. 27. In that context, I accept that t he Drill and Grouting Plan presented by the appellant is not intended to be a precise grouting proposal. That is b ecause it is not possible to conclude all solution features have been identified . And because the appellant would also deliberately be using real - time feedback from the construction operators involved in the drilling and grouting processes to further refine grouting placement s . The latter being a chieved v ia active monitoring of injection pressure and grout volumes extruded into the ground giving physical indication whether a f eature is stabilised or not . 28. Nevertheless, from a risk perspective the Drill and Grouting Plan still offers a reasonable planning and decision making basis to work from . It is underpinned by a reasonably robust technical assessment allowing for interpretation expertise . Even if there was more prior investigatory technical information aligned with SODC ’s and TFAG ’s contentions, operators would still need to respond to real time grout injection feedbac k when undertaking the work. 29. As part of examining the existing hydrogeological conditions, I note that E.Coli and other total coliform bacteria were consistently found across the site during September to November 2025 3 at boreholes MW1 - 5 and HF2. With concentrations highest at HF2 at the western boundary of the site heading towards existing residential properties. 1 Geotechnical Investigation 4072D/19 (Terramech) , Appendix C : Borehole logs Z1 – Z10 . 2 Hydrogeological Impact Assessment for ground stabilisation works, ( H Fraser Consulting , 2024 ) Appendix C . Borehole references: HF2 ; HF3 & HF5 . 3 Appellant’s Analytical Reports by Analytical i2 Environmental Science Ltd . Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 30. This does imply routes in groundwater could be affected by surface and subsurface contamination via rapid flow through superficial deposits. Septic tank leakage is highlighted as the likely primary contaminant source. That said, I am equally cognisant a variety of wildlife in the area are also potentially capable of spread ing such coliform s . For instance , at my site visit I witnessed two deer moving around within the boundary and there is likely to be other fauna in the localit y . Thus, I do not rule out the possibility of other wider traceable sources above septic tank leakage . 31. Importantly, I note that compaction grouting is not a novel construction technique given it has been used in the UK since the 1980’s. As depicted by the appellant’s experts t he compaction grouting process described involves drilling boreholes , then injecting a stiff mortar grout, containing coarse sand and limestone dust. This process produces an expanding bulb, compressing the surrounding ground. 32. The evidence before me implies injected grout would not flow , i t would be extruded under pressure emerg ing as a solid like mass. S etting begins from the moment it is mixed and it achieves full curing within approximately two hours. Injection would be targeted into unstructured chalk, with a 2 metre stand - off above the measured water table monitored daily, with no pulverised fuel ash, and a 50 metre exclusion zone around the PWS. 33. I recognise the EA’s approach to groundwater protection involves the application of the precautionary principle. I also agree relative to joint EA/Defra guidance it is the responsibility o f a developer to provide an adequate conceptual model for a risk assessment . In addition to any other relevant information for its engineering works to be suitab ly gauged. 34. Similarly, I also realise seeking more baseline data within the initial assessments can sometimes be an essential requirement. Nonetheless, insights which can be obtained from practical understanding, experience, and applied professional expertise are also applicable as ingredients informing the appellant’s overall approach. In this case professional judgment has been applied alongside the limitations in the baseline data available. 35. In such circumstances linked to the dispute , the practical application of engineering solutions devised to treat ground conditions cannot be determined by report data alone. At some junctures there must be some interpretation and inferences applied. In the main this falls at the interface of independent experts and eventual contractors undertaking stabilisation works informed by initial investigation and known risks. Accepting other anomalies c ould occur. 36. Thus overall, there would never be absolute certainty on ground conditions. The appellant on the whole evidences a structured engineering process and active solutions to treat unstable ground . 37. Based on all the evidence the grouting process would not be haphazard. I have no strong reasons to believe competent contractors would not be able to undertake the engineering works safely or correctly , ensuring adequate protections. 38. S crutiny of the appellant’s approaches during the inquiry itself further focuses and brings attention to any possible weaknesses in the proposed engineering steps to be taken. SODC conceded that a suitable future monitoring scheme Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 could establish the ground water levels when grouting would be undertaken. SODC ’s criticisms nevertheless remain that adequate ground level water information is still warranted in the HIA. 39. That said, additional information is contained in the appellant’s hydrogeological witness statements referring to December 2025 and January 2026 as well as some off - site Thames Water data in the wider evidence. Although SODC still point to shortfalls from inter - seasonal or inter - annual variation the additional data gives me some further reassurance that the appellant’s initial assessments are reasonabl y robust . 40. With respect to ground investigation work, the appellant has limited its intrusive investigations to isolated boreholes and dynamic probe testing within the zones of the potential features using a 6 metre grid system. 41. Allowing for suggested limitations in the dynamic probe evidence, the criticisms of 6 metre grid spacing utilised instead of 3 metre spacing are material. I accept there may be undetected voids present in the ground. But there would be ample scope for the appellant to safely rectify that situation using the compaction grouting techniques they have described. 42. The matter undoubtably is a risk but I am not persuaded it carries an unacceptable level of risk. Even with 3 metre spacing , the risk of undetected features would still not vanish. The appellant otherwise gives credible evidence of how grout compaction techniques would sufficiently stabilise the ground. More grout stabilisation could be undertaken if it proved necessary during groundworks, when pressure and grout extr u sion monitoring feedback would be known by the drilling and injection point operator. 43. There is no dispute about the presence of open fractures and fissures in the structured chalk. Albeit t he parties disagree whether the properties of unstructured chalk can support pathways allowing the passage of grout. 44. The precautionary 2 metre stand - off above groundwater levels prior to grout injection would provide some safeguard . Even so, I acknowledge that some of the solution features present penetrate below the water table for drilling into the structured chalk. This does give rise to sub - vertical and sub - horizontal pathway risks as well as risks through the presence of other potential v oids in the ground. 45. Yet, the appellant supported by the slump tests it evidences indicates that grout injected into the ground would set within two hours. As a result, there would be no reasonable prospect of transmission into the PWS. Even when conceding there are potential additional pathway risks including fast flow pathways in accordance with SODC and TFAG’s cases, the distances involved relative to the setting time are the most crucial factors. Furthermore, no other stabilisation process is considered a realistic practica l alternative to grouting. 46. I find t he distances evident coupled with the anticipated stiffness/thickness of the grout prior to its setting gives a credible explanation why it would be highly improbable, if not impossible , for the grouting works defined within Appeal A to harm the PWS. Thus, the overall risk level from grouting processes on the aquifer and abstraction would be acceptable. Nevertheless, other overlapping factors also warrant consideration . (ii) Adequacy of drainage strategy detail s Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 47. At the time when the outline planning permission (P16/S0970/O) was approved, and the reserved matters consent (P19/S0245/RM) was granted, SODC had no indication that the ground conditions were such that stabilisation works would be required to implement the permitted housing development . 48. The proposed updated drainage strategy would utilise two detention basins to the east of the site, alongside Reading Road. These were granted under the reserved matters consent. Water would then be pumped from the eastern detention basins to a proposed new primary detention/infiltration basin to the west , replacing 11 permitted homes. A pumping station would be required due to the existing topography, as the new western basin is on the highest part of the site. 49. A surface water pumping station would be located near to the allotments towards the northern boundary . It is designed to meet adoptable standards, which requires the provision of two pumps, in the event of failure. Although t he likelihood of both failing at the same time is slim , it is possible . F or example, electrical failure could lead to this situation . In such circumstances, significant surface water storage would be available within the drainage network allowing repairs or alternative power provision t o be made. 50. Fundamentally, when assessing the appellant’s drainage strategy SODC and TFAG provide combined reasons against the principle of a layout using a pumped surface water drainage system . I ncluding allowing for water discharge from Reading Road , on sustainability grounds. 51. In particular , TFAG contend a gravity based system is both possible and preferable as well as supporting a less intensive form of layout. In their view such changes would alleviate the strain on the appellant to seek to rely upon over complicated engineering solutions. I agree a less dense housing scheme would allow greater latitude in the layout and /or utilisation of a gravity system ( if feasible ) would further minimise some risks. 52. That said, a decision is still required based on the collective information before the i nquiry relative to all alleged risks alongside what has already been previously permitted. 53. The appellant takes the position that pumped storage is the most suitable option for its layout in trying to meet SODC’s overall reasons for refusal linked to a ppeals A, B and C. There is nothing compelling to show that a gravity system would be effective for the number of homes the appellant is purs u ing . O therwise, it is likely owing to ease they would already have pursued this alternative option . 54. The Court of Appeal Glidewell LJ 4 case q uoted in the evidence sheds further light on the dispute s in that it identifies the overarching legal principle that a Planning Authority cannot refuse the best option achievable. As to do so could amount to a revocation of planning permission in the context of what has already been formally permitted. 55. The fact that the proposed drainage strategy involves adoption requirements through a New Appointments Variation (NAV) or statutory undertaker is an extremely important added complication. TFAG and SODC making the 4 Medina Borough Council vs Proberun Ltd ; Court of Appeal ( Glidewell, Stuart - Smith L.JJ. and Sir David Croom - Johnson): May 15, 1990 Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 combined proposition there is no realistic chance of adoption from a NAV or Thames Water as the statutory undertaker. 56. Affiliated risks also arise in that it is not possible to conclude that all solution features have been identified, particularly within the western detention basin and infiltration b l anket area. Subsequently, I have factored risks regarding: solution features remaining untreated; solution features not be ing completely grouted if they continue to depths below the groundwater table; and risks grout could be injected into a void extending into the water table itself. 57. Moreover , SODC raise: the stability of embankments should not be left to post condition discharge consent; that the basin may be undersized; the potential for overtopping relative to a 300mm freeboard; the lack of emergency storage and spacing around pipes for mai ntenance and lined permeable road paving on top of a rising main drain; inadequate soakaway tests as all being factors for a NAV to reject adoption of infiltration features. 58. I also note the maximum water levels of the western detention basin would sit around 4 metres above the floor levels of adjacent dwellings in the event of failure. 59. But even when considering all those additional points raised , the overall resultant flood and pollution risks are still likely to be low. Due maintenance regimes can be secured. Plus, the appellant suggested during the i nquiry there would be practical flexibility to achieve increased freeboard requirements in the eventual detailed drainage design. There being scope for a 400 - 600mm (or at least 500mm) freeboard aligned with SuDS Manual advice exceeding t he 300mm currently suggested, with a 1 in a 1000 year storm event and possible overtopping in mind. 60. In addition, there are notable historic flooding incidents documented over a ten year period on Reading Road. Even without new housing, I am aware the existing soakaways built under Section 278 (s278) of the Highways Act 1980 provision s may either not be effective or require maintenance. Even so, the Highway Authority has powers to further assess and assist this matter including potentia l l y bolstering maintenance regimes if it needed to further protect the residents it serves, irrespective of the outcome of the appeal s . 61. Whilst NAV adoption may be difficult to obtain, I cannot conclude it would be impossible. It is a separate formal process where there is scope to make detailed design adjustment. And , the previous granting of outline permission for a maximum quantum of housing is also material. 62. That is because it is for the appellant to find and pursue the most effective solutions to the technical constraints it faces for the maximum number of houses it can practically achieve, supported by evidence . The maximum figure already being lowered in its intended revised layout with all public and statutory concerns accounted for in mind. 63. Consequently, bringing all relevant technical points together I find the criticisms to the details provided to meet condition 11 concerning Appeal C do not raise insurmountable issues that are incapable of being overcome . Nonetheless, g iven the intersecting appeal case arguments present further impacts should be addressed before reaching any overall findings . (iii) Other linked drainage/flooding, ground stability and pollution risk s Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 64. Alongside the submitted drainage strategy, t he p lanning application reference P24/S2652/S73 appealed seeks to amend the approved layout to accommodate the drainage features necessitated by the ground stabilisation works, resulting in a reduction from 95 to 84 dwellings, with upgraded house types and a new SuDS drainage basin in the south - western corner o f the site. 65. TFAG contend : the appellant’s detailed risk assessment does not recognise the potential for solution features and vulnerabilities as indicated by dynamic probe readings ( AO12, AN13, AN14, AO14 and AP14 ) beneath the planned western detention basin; the risk assessment only considers the PWS, using the chalk aquifer for the purposes of dilution and attention of contaminants; the detention basin sits above unstructured chalk and must provide adequate permea bility to allow recharge of the aquifer; potential inc reased turbidity from grouting processes transferring pollutants; and increased alkalinity from using ordinary Portland Cement and uncertainty of any additive use. 66. Additionally, t here are material on and off site flood risks attached to potential failure of the proposed detention basin design. Plus, t he design of the proposed temporary bunds featuring in the construction phases are alleged by SODC and the R ule 6 Pa r ty to not adequately address what the risks are during a severe weather event . I have considered all such criticisms in my overall findings. 67. In terms of drainage / flood and pollution risk matters arising from the engineering works in Appeal A and in the varied layout for Appeal B . The appellant’s analysis suggests there are some solution features within the footprint of the detention basin and supporting bunds. SODC and TFAG share concerns that these pose a ground destabilisation and subsequent flood risk if left untreated. 68. However, I have no strong reason to believe the appellant ’ s approach would not be able to be successful given the depths involved relative to the drainage system , infiltration rates and expected containment bund height . Planning conditions would provide further reassurances. A side to that, a ny additional solution features would also be able to be suitably treated if they were needed to be . I nclusive of the appellant obtaining any further necessary consents. 69. The appellant as part of its proposed temporary surface water drainage strategy , utili sing containment bunds , anticipates the use of a ‘silt buster’ to mi ni mise sediment in site surface water. Although some unwanted residual sediment may be transported , t h e process would provide adequate control as the stabilisation works progress ed . 70. T he south eastern corner of the site has some vulnerability for a 1 in 100 year storm event . Which would affect Reading Road should the temporary bund s fail . Nevertheless, that vulnerability would only be within a limited timeframe whilst the stabilisation works would be completed . 71. I recognise a variety of factors such as seasonality/rainfall , groundwater level variability and pumping periods at the PWS are further variables during construction works . But these considerations would be able to be managed through daily monitoring in the construction process es . 72. In other drainage respects also linked to the layout sought in Appeal B and linked to Appeal’s A and C . F alling head tests and permeability rate information provided by the appellant underpinning the size of the basin and infiltration Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 blanket give me further insights and assurances its approach would be able to be successful . 73. There may be some technical shortfalls in the drainage details provided . However, there is due flexibility to furt her adapt the d rainage d esign in relation to overcoming min im um freeboard requirements and any notional basin under sizing risk , a longside Defra’s national requirements for S u D S through working amendment . Accepting, t he detention basin would have a water level considerably above the nearest properties. 74. In the event of bund failure , more water would discharge onto Reading Road and the properties to the east of Reading Road. Nonetheless, I find that residual flood risk s would be able to be successfully managed to an acceptable level through the imposition of suitably worded planning conditions aligned with SODC officer recommendations . 75. As to the scope to utilise a Source Protection Strategy (SPS) planning condition . Important nuances arise in that t he EA suggests such a condition would be to ensure the proposed development does not harm the water environment. Whereas Thames Water ’s suggested wording focuses on not harming the water abstraction source. 76. I concur that the suggested SPS condition wording subject to the main appeal party dispute may not be able to discount any harm whatsoever to water resources . It would however facilitate proportionate monitoring and remedial action should any be required. Consequently, it would still be beneficial. Connected to that issue , the appellant’s water contamination model is highly conservative in multiple respects and shows negligible risk from contaminants . This strengthens the basis of favouring the appellant’s approach es . 77. Other criticisms cite assessment has not accounted for the risk associated with failure of water management systems, including structural failure of sewage pipes leading to the migration of contaminants . Yet, p recautions such as flexible couplings and high - specification pipework c ould readily be incorporated in the detailed design phase, in accordance with the EA 's recommendations for sewage infrastructure in SPZ1 . Besides , I note there is existing development much closer to SPZ1 which ha s not been rejected on such speculative grounds. 78. The EA’s approach to groundwater protection is material. Development works in Appeal A and Appeal B could potentially require an environmental permit, even though the appellant does not envisage this to be the case. Consequently, I have approached this mat ter cautiously when considering the scope of the main parties suggested planning condition wordings. 79. In accepting there is a gap between statutory consultee response intention s for condition use application, it is necessary for me to bring all points together relative to the risks involved. I find there would be no realistic prospect of grout reaching the aquifer and thus the risk level is acceptable . But a n appropriately worded planning condition would assist with due monitoring and any remedial action on a precautionary basis if the grouting process proved problematic . E ven if highly improbable. However improbable the likelihood, a belt and braces precautionary approach is warranted . 80. The chemical structure , of the grout pre and post setting utilising o r dinary c ement rather than s ulphate r esisting was clarified by the appellant . On top of Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 the wider appeal evidence referring to the mix more broadly as contain ing water, sand, cement and bentonite. Accordingly, a satisfactory impact to water pH levels would be possible and highly probable from the grouts composition . The overall setting time and stiffness of the mixed grout are adequate reasons not to attribute harm from potential additive use , of which none is envisaged in the appellant’s submissions . 81. SOD C also raise issues with the design and location of the detention basin. Especially outfall ; key feature sizing; self - cleansing capacity and its long - term maintenance. Nonetheless, I am satisfied the appellant has planned adequately for its drainage s ystems to be successful. The re is scope to overcome some residual criticisms alongside recognition of s104 of the Water Industry Act 1991 and the processes expected to achieve drainage system adoption . To assume there would be no possibility of adoption would be overly restrictive . 82. Strikingly, SODC do not claim actual harm to the PWS or the c halk aquifer. Both the EA and Thames Water are satisfied that a SPS secured by planning condition is an appropriate and effective safeguard. The EA in applying its groundwater protection policies has concluded that the risks are acceptable. Although such views are not binding, I find there is no compelling basis to disagree with their conclusions . 83. Overall, a llowing for planning condition use, I find that collective stabilisation, ground stability, pollution, drainage and flood risk impacts for Appeal A would be able to be managed to an acceptable level . South Oxford shire Local Plan 2011 - 2035 (SOLP) Polic ies ENV12 and DES7 a s well as Joint Henley and Harp sden Neighbourhood Plan 2020 - 2035 ( J HHNP) Policy E NV5 would be complied with . C ombined those policies aim to prevent harm to human health, the natural environment and neighbouring uses . A s well as ensuring new development ha s appropriate regard to geology and drainage capacity given the chalk present in the area. 84. I n tandem , when assessing all overall risks tied to Appeal C relative to Appeals A and B , I find there is sufficient detail to allow formal discharge of condition 11 . The details provided would ensure the proper provision of surface water and foul water drainage , to ensure flooding and pollution is not exacerbated in accordance with SOLP Policy EP4 seeking to minimise such risks . 85. Similarly , the collective stabilisation, ground stability, pollution, drainage and flood risk impacts for Appeal B would also be able to be managed to an acceptable level. Accepting , there are other Appeal B matters which need to be addressed. Deed of variation adequacy / other residual matters ( linked to Appeal B) 86. In assessing th e preceding main issues, I have already factored that t he Section 73 application appealed is to vary conditions 1 (Approved Plans) and 3 (Landscaping) on the Reserved Matters approval . 87. A suitably worded and executed d eed of v ariation agreed by the appellant, SODC and Oxfordshire County Council would extinguish the reason for refusal previously advanced by SODC towards meeting existing Section 106 (s106) planning obligation requirements administered under the Town and Count r y Planning Act 1990. Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 88. As part of those considerations, at the i nquiry the appellant acknowledged that an addendum to the affiliated s278 agreement also incorporated in to the original planning obligation w ould be required . This would be needed to secure necessary adjustments to amend the highways soakaway adoption plan drawing and/or any bond provision if required . 89. Such amendment would be able to be achieved through a new separate s278 entered into by the appellant and the County Council directly. In that context, I note that the County Council have indicated that no further revision to Schedule 7 of the original s106 planning obligation would therefore be necessary. 90. The original s106 terms are not otherwise contended by the main appeal parties and I have no substantive reason to conclude the resultant provi si ons are not acceptable . Consequently, there would be suitable binding arrangements in place securing affordable housing, infrastructure and mitigation meeting SODC ’s reasons for refusal applied to Appeal B. 91. Whether or not adequate drainage design (linked to Appeal C) and ground stabilisation works (linked to Appeal A) can be provided , having regard to pollution risks to a local aquifer; public water abstraction; as well as the stability of the land for development and flood risk is answered by my overall reasoning in the preceding main issue s . 92. Accordingly, I find the information available linked to Appeal B alongside the submitted d eed of v ariation coupled with the original s106 meets the terms of S OLP Policies INF1, TRANS4, TRANS5, EP3, EP4, ENV1, CF5, ENV12 and DES7 . As well as J HHNP Policies ENV5, H2, and T5 . Collectively those policies seek to ensure: appropriate infrastructure and mitigation including for transport and affordable housing provision; that the quality of the local landscape and the countryside is respected; appropriate regard is paid to geology and drainage ; the efficient use and protection of natural resources; pollution a nd amenity harm avoidance ; as well as facilitating safe walking routes . Other planning considerations 93. For all of the appeals I have carefully considered other public objections relating to: the appellant’s Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) credibility and alleged deficiency; noise, vibration and air quality assessment inclusion in the EIA; harm to human health/absence of proof of adequate safety levels or contingency plans if pollution or contamination of the ground/water did occur; absence of monitoring; and alleged flawed drainage and foul waste disposal . 94. As well as further claims that : planning permission should not have been granted in the first instance; the overall complexity of the site conditions has been underestimated without robust investigation; some risks are unquantifiable; carbon footprint impacts; soil damage; adverse implications to water, gas and sewage utilities ; negative impacts to wildlife; unacceptable increases in traffic; conflict with sustainability goals; other sites/alternatives should be pursued for housing; neighbourhood planning i nterests should not be ignored ; and that new housing numbers should not override public safety or water supply management interests. 95. In summary those considerations do not give me compelling reasons to refuse planning permission or condition discharge. Mainly because of the findings of Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 14 the officer reports informing SODC’s decisions having regard to statutory consultee advice, as well as condition and planning obligation use applicable . B ut also, because the appellant has otherwise given adequate overall reasoning of why its approaches are acceptable. 96. Having regard to the Town and Country Planning ( EIA ) Regulations 2017 , inclusive of Schedule 4, I am satisfied there is sufficient overall environmental information available to inform a decision . Noting t he appeal parties have agreed to the main inquiry issues as informed by topic specific statements bearing in mind all other third party opposition to the appeal in advance of the opening of the inquiry . 97. Tellingly, as highlighted in SODC’s officer committee report findings I note that Thames Water has raised no objection to the development. Furthermore, one of the roles of the EA is to protect groundwater sources used to supply drinking water from pollutio n and they have also raised no objection to the proposed ground stabilisation works. The responses of those statutory bodies carry significant overarching weight. 98. The engineering works detailed within Appeal A is not in itself a proposal for new housing. Therefore, applying the til t ed balance within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework ) would not be appropriate. Nevertheless, the fact that the engineering proposal would be undertaken to facilitate much needed new housing in a n administrative area which cannot otherwise demonstrate an adequate housing land supply remains . Accordingly, i n the circumstances, I do give substantial weight to enabling new housing as an underpinning reason for the appellant making the planning application linked to Appeal A . 99. Connected to that matter as an overarching point, I agree with interested parties objecting to the appeal scheme s that housing supply pressures in themselves should not override public safety interests or unacceptable risks to the water supply. However, in this case c oupled with my findings on the main issues and the ability to use appropriately worded planning conditions alongside legal agreement use, there is nothing compelling to suggest such public concerns amount to strong enough reasons to resist the appeals when considered collectively or in isolation . The most pertinent risk factor s are adequately addressed. 100. P aragraph 61 of the Framework is relevant. It advocates to support the Government’s objective of significantly boosting the supply of homes, it is important that a sufficient amount and variety of land can come forward where it is needed, that the needs of groups with specific housing requirements are addressed and that land with permission is developed without unnecessary delay. The overall aim should be to meet an area’s identified housing need, including with an appropriate mix of housing types for the local community . 101. In accordance with the Framework, enabling the delivery of new housing within the locality carr ies significant positive economic and social benefits. 102. T he adverse impacts of the proposal s identified in the E nvironmental S tatement Addendum relating to carbon emissions and embodied carbon attract moderate negative weight. I also concur with SODC that w ith respect to A ppeal B, the impact of the construction compound on the woodland planting area would have a minor negative environmental impact, albeit it is alleviated Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 15 by planning conditions. I have factored th ese position s into my overall conclusions. Conditions 103. Without prejudice , the main parties comp il ed two separate lists of planning conditions . One applicable to Appeal A , the other applicable to Appeal B , in the event either is allowed. The lists are only partially agreed by the appellant as SODC and TFAG argue further alternative inclusions and wording extending to prior to commencement inclusions . 104. S ection 70(1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 enables a local planning authority when granting permission to impose planning conditions as they think fit . Nevertheless, a pre - commencement condition must not be imposed on the grant of permission (other than a grant of outline planning permission within the meaning of Section 92 of the 1990 Act) without the written agreement of the applicant except in the circumstances set o ut in the Town and Country Planning (Pre - commencement Conditions) Regulations 2018 . 105. I have considered all elements relative to the legal tests referenced in paragraph 5 7 of the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance, allowing for minor adjustment where necessary. For the avoidance of any doubt the legal tests for a planning condition are whether it is : necessary; relevant to planning; relevant to the development to be permitted; enforceable; precise; and reasonable in all other respects. Appeal A conditions 106. S tandard conditions would be needed to specify the time limit and plans in line with statutory provision and to enable a formal mechanism for amendment. 107. I realise that a greater amount of compaction grouting may , or may not , be required above that shown on the proposed Drill and Grout Plan . Importantly, t he p lan needs to be read alongside the O utline Project Method Statement and the Specification for the Stabilisation of Dissolution Features as well . T ogether with those documents t he umbrella terms of the description of the development appealed do facilitate due latitude. 108. If need ed , although I am not suggesting it w ould be, a further variation of condition application could be applied for , substituting the p lan should stabilisation works be more pervasive . But in any event, g iven the practicalities of undertaking the extensive ground engineering work applied for of which there is fair and sufficient approximate indication of already, it is also reasonable to allow some practical working leigh way . Plus, some plan deviation s may not trigger further consent . Either way the Council would retain adequate enforcement control s . 109. Additional conditions pertaining to e nvironmental p ermitting and collateral warranties are disputed . It is not clear what environment al permit (s) if any would b e required. I have no reason to believe EA focused requirements operating outside the planning system would not be duly followed or be able to function effectively . The onus would remain on the appellant to ensure compliance is met with the EA . Likewise , wider private contract interest mechanisms alluded to fall outside the scope of public interest matters to which Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 16 the planning permission would relate. Thus, those added component s would fail the legal test of necessity . 110. A SPS planning condition would be required to minimise the prospect of harm to the water environment from a risk manag ement perspective which incorporates monitoring . I note that grout composition and permit verification risks aligned to SODC’s and TFAG ’s overall co ncerns would be alleviated by its inclusion . Th is is because the Planning Authority would be able to consult the EA and other relevant statutory consultees on the suitability of the SPS details once received . The process facilitates requesting further details if required . 111. A surface water drainage scheme would be needed to manage residual pollution and flooding risks . In the prior to development commencing wording agreed by the appellant, it is reasonable to expect that any future strategy to be a pproved by the Planning Authority can , and sh ould include , monitoring as part of the management details to be provided . H aving regard to residential properties and Reading Road . 112. A soil management and phasing condition would be required to reduce the risk of unwanted soil compaction to assist with successful landscaping establishment. 113. C ondition s requiring a Construction Environmental Management Plan and tree protection details are required to protect ecological features , protected species and visually important trees . 114. A condition preventing grouting below the water table would be required to ensure no harm arises to the water environment. The app ellant has otherwise indicated it intends to utilise a 2 metre water table safety buffer . Thus, further stipulation in the wording would not improve the effectiveness of the condition to protect water resources or its subsequent enforceability. 115. C onstruction management c onditions securing : the restricti on of piling; air quality mitigation ; a Construction Traffic Management Plan ; a s well as construction methods and hours are required . These would be necessary to reduce the potential for harm to the water environment; to protect the living conditions of neighbouring residents and in the interests of highway safety. Appeal B conditions 116. A s tandard planning condition listing all approved plans would be appropriate having regard to statutory provisions and to facilitate any future amendments. 117. A landscaping , maintenance and replacement condition would be required to ensure the development properly assimilates with its surroundings. However, a future occupants/ landscape guide condition suggested as being agreed by the appellant would not meet enforceability or necessity tests . 118. Separate to that I agree a Travel Plan condition is necessary to promote non - car modes of transportation and sustainable travel . 119. A suite of planning conditions would be essential securing : visibility splays and their retention ; other highways related infrastructure (vehicle access, cycle ways, driveways and turning areas with associated surfacing and drainage) ; alongside construction management details to ensure adequate safety levels. The underlying construction management principles already agreed, but sought Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 17 to be further address ed, would be able to be effective without further alteration . 120. For the same reasons already mentioned linked to Appeal A I do not find conditions requ iring environmental permit verification or collateral warrant ies would be necessary. 121. C onditions would also be required to secure an Environmental Management Plan for Biodiversity and lighting details to protect ecological assets, interests and species. 122. A pre - commencement condition securing approval of a water drainage strategy and its subsequent implementation alongside other related conditions would be vital . The condition s would ensure suitable overall site drainage is achieved. Bearing in mind all submissions, the expected strategy should in corporate phasing, infiltration testing and future maintenance elements to minimise the risk s of any future harm (s) occurring . 123. An addition al condition for verification of the adoption arrangements anticipated under Section 104 of the Water Industry Act 1991 is warranted in line with SODC ’s and the R ule 6 ’s concerns . It is within the overall public interest to allow such a bespoke safeguard having regard to the overall design amendment and refinements indicated to be necessary relative to local flood risk management interests . 124. C onditions requiring c ompletion of groundworks would be needed to ensure the appeal site is safe. Above that, f urther house foundation inspection checks within the planning consent would not be necessary given the compaction grouting process es detailed by the appellant overall . 125. Further more, conditions are necessary and appropriate for fence/boundary treatment s and a noise assessment for the pumping station a longside any mitigation detail implementation . This w ould ensure the character of the area is respected and satisfactory resultant living conditions are achievable . Planning Balance and 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/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 18 129. Pursuant to Section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, local planning authorities and other decision makers should first have regard to the development plan and then to any ot her material considerations. 130. If regard is to be had to the development plan for the purpose of any determination to be made under the planning Acts the determination must be made in accordance with the plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise . 131. In the above context, I have found that the appellant demonstrates full compliance with the adopted development plan for the area , taken as a whole , bearing in mind all opposing contentions made . 132. As the appeal proposals com ply with the d evelopment p lan , subsequently it leads me to apply paragraph 11 (c) of the Framework which m eans that planning permission should be granted without delay. 133. But in any event, having regard to all risks and overall impacts t he positive impacts involved would outweigh the negative . Th e direct benefits arising relative to all considerations give me s trong enough reasons to allow the appeals . There are no other considerations of sufficient weight ( including resultant carbon emissions , embedded carbon and the overall environmental impacts) counting against the proposals within each of the appeals to conclude otherwise. 134. For the reasons set out above Appeals A, B and C all succeed . M Shrigley INSPECTOR APPEARANCES FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY: Michael Bedford KC WHO CALLED: Tony Clothier PhD Eng(Civil) BSc Eng(Civil) CEng CEnv CWEM Drainage/ f lood risk witness James Dodds BSc DUC MSc CGeol FGS FIQ Hydrogeology witness Richard Brinkworth B E ng CEng MICE ROGEP Ground engineering w itness Stephen Jupp BA LLM MRTPI Planning w itness Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 19 FOR THE RULE 6 PARTY: Richard Banwell Counsel WHO CALLED: Paul Eccleston BA(Hons) CertWEM CWEM MCIWEM Drainage/flood risk w itness Beverley Parrish BSc(Hons) MSc FGS Cgeol FEMA GSL Geology, h ydrogeology & e nvironmental r isk witness FOR THE APPELLANT: Sasha White KC Andrew Parkinson WHO CALLED: Hannah Fraser BA ( Hons ) MSc FGS C G eol SiLC Hydrogeology witness Dr Clive Edmonds Engineering geology w itness Andrew Dunhill BSc CEng MIMMM Grouting witness Leigh Abley Drainage/ engineering witness Emma Philpott C Eng CWEM MCIWEM Flood r isk w itness Michael Knott BA(Hons) MRTPI Planning w itness DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED DURING THE INQUIRY: 1) Appellant’s Opening 2) Rule 6 Party Opening 3) Council’s Openin g 4) Manual for the production of groundwater source protection zones 5) Vertase geotechnical response letter 6) Drinking Water Protected Areas - challenges for the water environment document Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 20 7) Draft deed of variation / list of planning conditions and revisions 8) s106/s278 clarification /explanation email note 9) Written closings of the Council 10) Written closings of the Rule 6 Party 11) Written closings of the Appellant 12) Completed deed of variation 13) EIA addendum consultation responses from E nvironment Agency/ Natural England DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED POST CLOSURE OF THE INQUIRY: 1) Appellant’s clarification of planning condition wording s they have agreed to. Schedule of Planning Conditions for Appeal A only : APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696 1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission. 2) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the following approved plans : CB_81_152_TCPA_000 - Location Plan ; D1827_66 Rev G - Site Layout Plan ; D1827_66 Rev F - Proposed Drill and Grout Plan ; 1150 - KC - XXYTREE - TCP01 Rev J - Tree Constraints Plan . E xcept as controlled or modified by conditions of this permission. 3) Prior to the commencement of the development a detailed Source Protection Strategy (SPS) , including a monitoring programme, shall be submitted to and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The SPS shall include details of measures to ensure the water abstraction source is not detrimentally affected by the proposed development both during and after its construction, shall be supported by detailed calculations, and include a programme for future main tenance. The scheme shall be fully implemented and subsequently maintained in accordance with the timing/phasing arrangements embodied within the scheme. 4) If any significant impact to the water environment, arising from the development, is found during the monitoring programme, a Remediation Scheme specifying the measures to be taken to remediate the impact shall be submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The Remediation Scheme, as agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, shall be fully implemented in accordance with the approved timetable of works. Any variation to the scheme shall be agreed in writing with the L ocal Planning Authority in advance of works being undertaken. On completion of the works the developer shall submit to the Local Planning Authority a Verification Report(s) with evidence confirming that all works were completed in accordance with the agreed de tails. Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 21 5) Prior to the commencement of the development, a full and detailed surface water drainage design based on testing in accordance with BS EN ISO 22282 - 2:2012 and CIRIA Report C753 SuDS Manual Chapter 25.3 shall be submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority (LPA) . The infiltration assessment shall observe how the infiltration performs at the precise position of the dispersal point and a procedure shall be submitted to , and approved by the LPA , to demonstrate how monitoring following each rainfall event will be recorded and submitted to the LPA as part of the evidence base for the final design. The surface water drainage scheme shall include details of management systems that will be implemented during the grouting works to manage any potential contamination in surface water runoff. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details 6) Prior to the commencement of the development, a detailed monitoring program for the performance of the outfall should be submitted to , and approved , by the L ocal P lanning A uthority . The monitoring program should include protocols in the event that the water at the outfall is deemed to be polluted with silt or other contaminants, or in the event that the water overtops and contributes to additional flooding on Reading road or the res idents to the East of Reading Road. 7) Prior to the commencement of the development, including vegetation clearance or ground works, a programme detailing when the soil stripping and respreading will take place shall be submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The phasing of the of works shall take account of recommendations in Soil Resource Survey (Tim O'Hare Associates dated December 2024) and the works shall be carried out in accordance with the Soil Management Strategy (Tim O'Hare , March 2025). 8) Prior to the commencement of the development, including vegetation clearance or ground works, an updated construction environmental management plan for Biodiversity (CEMP: Biodiversity) shall be submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The CEMP (Biodiversity) shall, as far as reasonably possible, be consistent with the 2019 CEMP (Ecology Solutions , dated January 2019) but shall consider the updated site baseline surveys described in the Ecological Assessment Report (Ecology So lutions , dated December 2024) . It shall include the following: a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities. b) Identification of biodiversity protection zones. c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid, reduce or mitigate the impacts on important habitats (retained boundary woodland and hedgerows) and protected species (roosting bats, badger, hedgehog, nesting birds, rep tiles and amphibians) during construction. d) The location and timing of sensitive works to avoid harm to biodiversity features. e) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works. f) Responsible persons and lines of communication. Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 22 g) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs. The approved CEMP (Biodiversity) shall be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approved details. 9) Prior to the commencement of any site works or operations, including demolition and site clearance relating to the development hereby permitted, an Arboricultural Method Statement and accompanying Tree Protection Plan shall be submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The Arboricultural Method Statement must include the following: a) A specification of any pruning or tree surgery works to any trees to be retained, to prevent accidental damage by construction or demolition activities; b) The specification and location of temporary tree protective fencing and any ground protection required to protect all retained trees in accordance with the current edition of BS 5837 ''Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction'', and details of the timing and duration of its erection; c) The definition of areas for the storage or stockpiling of materials, temporary on - site parking, site offices and huts, mixing of cement or concrete, and fuel storage; d) The means of demolition of any existing site structures, and of the re - instatement of the area currently occupied thereby; e) The route and method of installation of drainage or any underground services in the vicinity of retained trees; f) Consideration will be made to avoid siting of utilities and service runs within the Root Protection Area (RPA) of all trees to be retained. Only where it can be demonstrated that there is no alternative location for the laying of utilities, will encroachme nt into the RPA be considered. Methodology for any installation works within the RPA will be provided and must be in compliance with the current edition of NJUG 'Guidelines for the planning and installation and maintenance of utility apparatus in proximity to trees' ; g) The details and method of construction of any other structures such as boundary walls in the RPA of retained trees and how these relate to existing ground levels; h) The details of materials and method of construction of any roadway, driveway, parking, pathway or other surfacing within the RPA, which is to be of a ' n o d ig' construction method, in accordance with the principles with in Arboricultural Association Guidance Note 12 "The use of cellular confinement systems near trees" and in accordance with current industry best practice; and is appropriate for the type of ro adway required in relation to its usage. i) Provision for the supervision of any works within the RPA of trees to be retained, and for the monitoring of continuing compliance with the protective measures specified, by an appropriately qualified arboricultural consultant, to be appointed at the developer's expense and notified to the L ocal Planning Authority, prior to the commencement of development; and provision for the Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 23 regular reporting of continued compliance or any departure there from to the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details with the agreed measures being kept in place during the entire course of development. 10) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the details in the Outline Project Method Statement (Vertase FLI Dated December 2024) and the Specification for the Stabilisation of Dissolution Features (Vertase FLI dated November 2024). As detailed in these reports, there shall be no grouting below the water table and the grout shall not contain any ingredients that have the potential to contaminate the groundwater (including Pulverised Fuel Ash). 11) No piling shall take place in association with the approved development (engineering operations associated with ground stabilisation works) hereby approved. 12) The development shall be implemented in accordance with the mitigation measures outlined in the Air Quality Assessment (Stantec , dated August 2024). 13) The development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with the measures outlined in the Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) (Abley Letchford Partnership dated August 2024 ref: Report A253/R011 rev A). The CTMP shall be implemented prio r to any works being carried out on site and shall be maintained throughout the course of the development. 14) No development shall commence on site (including any works of demolition), until a Construction Method Statement (C MS) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The CMS shall include the following: a) the parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors; b) loading and unloading of plant and materials; c) storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development; d) the erection and maintenance of security hoarding including decorative displays and facilities for public viewing, where appropriate; e) wheel washing facilities; f) measures to control the emission of dust dirt during construction; g) a scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works; h) measures for the protection of the natural environment; i) hours of construction to be limited to between 8am and 6pm on Mondays to Fridays and between 8am to 1pm on Saturdays. No work shall be undertaken on Sundays and Public Holidays ; The approved Statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved construction methods. Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 24 End of Schedule for Appeal A Schedule of Planning Conditions f or Appeal B only : APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 1) The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the following approved plans : CB_81_152_S73_000 Rev A – Site Location Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_001 Rev D – Planning Layout ; CB_81_152_S73_002 Rev D – Land Use Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_003 Rev D – Housing Mix Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_004 Rev D – Affordable Housing Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_005 Rev D – Building Heights Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_006 Rev D – Parking Strategy Layout ; CB_81_152_S73_007 Rev D – Bin and Cycle Store Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_008 Rev D – External Finishes Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_907 Rev D – Garden Areas Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_908 Rev D – Character Areas Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_909 Rev D – Solar Panel Plan ; CSA/4049/100 - Rev H – Hard Landscape Proposals (1 of 3) ; CSA/4049/101 - Rev H – Hard Landscape Proposals (2 of 3) ; CSA/4049/102 - Rev H – Hard Landscape Proposals (3 of 3) ; CSA/4049/103 - Rev J – Soft Landscape Proposals (1 of 3) ; CSA/4049/104 - Rev J – Soft Landscape Pro posals (2 of 3) ; CSA/4049/105 - Rev J – Soft Landscape Proposals (3 of 3) ; CSA/4049/106 - Rev C – LAP (Play Area) Proposals ; CSA/4049/107 Rev H – Landscape Masterplan ; CSA/4049/108 Rev E – Frontage Woodland Planting ; CSA/4049/119 - Rev A – SuDS Basin Landscape Section ; 1150 - KC - S73 - YTREE - TPP01 Rev A – Tree Protection Plan ; CB_81_152_S73_BC_01 - Bin and Cycle Storage ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_1BF_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_2BCH_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_2BCH_01 - Elevations & F loor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_ CV_HA_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_ CV_HA_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA21_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA21_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA22_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA22_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA32_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA32_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA45_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA45_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA45_03 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA47_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA47_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NA47_03 - Elevations & Floor Plan s; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NT30_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NT30_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NT30_03 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NT31_01 - Elevatio ns & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_NT31_NA21_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_PA34_NA22_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_CV_PA34_NA22_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_FS_NA21_01 - Elevations & Floor Plan s; CB_81_152_S73_FS_NA22_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 25 CB_81_152_S73_FS_NA22_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_FS_NA22_03 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_FS_NA34_NA22_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_FS_NB32_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_FS_NT30_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_FS_NT31_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_03 - Elevations & Floor Plan s; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_04 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_05 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_06 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_07 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_08 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_GAR_09 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_SS_01 – Street Scenes ; CB_81_152_S73_SS_02 – Street Scenes ; CB_81_152_S73_SS_03 – Street Scenes ; CB_81_152_S73_SS_04 – Street Scenes ; CB_81_152_S73_SS_05 – Street Scenes ; CB_81_152_S73_SS_06 – Street Scenes ; CB_81_152_S73_SS_07 – Street Scenes ; CB_81_152_S73_SS_08 – Street Scenes ; CB_81_152_S73_SUB_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_WC_HA_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_WC_NA47_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_WC_NA47_02 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; CB_81_152_S73_WC_NT30+_01 - Elevations & Floor Plans ; A253_S73_101 Rev P3 – General Arrangement ; A253_S73_111 Rev P3 – Levels and Contours ; A253 - S73 - 511 P2 - Drainage Construction Details Sheet 1 ; A253 - S73 - 512 P2 - Drainage Construction Details Sheet 2 ; A253 - S73 - 513 P2 - Drainage Construction Details Sheet 3 ; A253 - S73 - 514 P1 - Drainage Construction Details Sheet 4 ; A253_S73_711 Rev P3 – External Works Sheet 1 ; A253_S73_712 Rev P3 – External Works Sheet 2 ; A253_S73_713 Rev P3 – External Works Sheet 3 ; A253_S73_714 Rev P3 – External Works Sheet 4 ; A253 - S73 - 501 Rev P4 – Section 73 Drainage Layout Sheet 1 ; A253 - S73 - 502 Rev P4 – Section 73 Drainage Layout Sheet 2 ; A253 - S73 - 503 Rev P4 – Section 73 Draina ge Layout Sheet 3 ; A253 - S73 - 504 Rev P4 – Section 73 Drainage Layout Sheet 4 . Except as controlled or modified by conditions of this permission. 2) The landscaping scheme as shown on the approved plans shall be implemented in accordance with the Landscape Management Plan (CSA Environmental dated December 2024) and thereafter be maintained in accordance with this Plan. In the event of any of the trees or shrubs so planted dying or being seriously damaged or destroyed within 5 years of the completion of the development, a new tree or shrub or equivalent number of trees or shrubs, as the case may be, of a species first approved by the Local Planning Autho rity, shall be planted and properly maintained in a position or positions first approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 3) Before occupation of any dwelling, a Travel Plan Statement and a Residential Travel Information Pack shall be submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. Within one month of occupation, the first residents of each dwelling shall be provided with a copy of the approved Travel Information Pack. 4) Visibility splays of 2.4m x 25m at the junctions of the internal estate roads within the site shall be provided and maintained at all times. Within the visibility envelopes, no obstructions, inclusive of fencing and boundary walls Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 26 shall exceed 600mm in height and any planting shall be located outside and clear of the visibility envelopes. 5) No dwelling shall be occupied until the vehicular access, footways, cycle ways, driveways and turning areas that serve the dwelling have been constructed, surfaced and drained. The vehicular access, footways, cycle ways, driveways and turning areas provide d for each dwelling shall be retained thereafter. 6) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the measures outlined in the Construction Management Plan (Abley Letchford Partnership dated August 2024 (reference: A253 - R008 rev E) ) . The approved Construction Management Plan shall be complied with throughout the construction period. 7) No further development shall commence beyond the access works already implemented until a Construction Environment Management Plan for Biodiversity (CEMPB) has been submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The approved CEMPB shall be complied with throughout the construction period. 8) No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until visibility splays at the site access, 2.4 metres by 94.6 metres to the north and 2.4 metres by 97.7 metres to the south, have been provided. The visibility splays shall not at any time be obstructed by a ny object, structure, planting or material with a height exceeding 0.9 metres as measured at carriageway level. 9) No further development shall commence, beyond the access works already implemented, until a method statement to address the impact of the development, including lighting around the site boundaries, on the local bat population has been submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The method statement shall be implemented as approved. 10) No further development shall commence, beyond the access works already implemented, until a full drainage scheme detailing all surface drainage works, has been submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme should take account of intended development construction phases. The scheme should be supported by infiltration testing in accordance with with BS EN ISO 22282 - 2:2012 and CIRIA Report C753 SuDS Manual Chapter 25 .3 for BRE365 for all infiltration features, and features and carried out at the base of the infiltration feature in accordance with best practices. The approved s trategy shall be fully implemented. 11) Development shall be carried out in full compliance with the submitted foul drainage details. No dwelling shall be occupied until the foul water drainage design that serves that dwelling has been completed and brought into use . 12) A Verification Report should be prepared for each phase of the development by a suitably - qualified professional to confirm that construction has been carried out in accordance with the approved plans, and submitted to the LPA for approval. No dwelling shal l be occupied until the foul and surface water drainage for the construction phase in which the dwelling resides, has been completed in accordance with the approved plans, as set out in the Verification Report and brought into use. 13) No dwelling shall be occupied until confirmation of all adoption arrangements under Section 104 of the Water Industry Act (1991), including full Technical Approval has be en provided in writing to the Local Planning Authority . Appeal Decision s APP/Q3115/W/25/3373696, APP/Q3115/W/25/3373702 , APP/Q3115/W/25/3373700 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 27 14) No development above slab level shall commence until details of the fencing to the pumping station shall be submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. The fencing shall be implemented as approved and retained as such thereafter. 15) No further development shall commence beyond the access works already implemented on site until a full and detailed design for the attenuation basins has been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the L ocal P lanning A uthority . This shall include: ( a ) infiltration testing in accordance with BS EN ISO 22282 - 2:2012 and upon CIRIA Report C753 SuDS Manual Chapter 25.3 at the base of the infiltration feature; ( b ) inspection on site by a suitably qualified engineering geologist or geotechnical engineer to assess any evidence of solution features; ( c ) geotechnical/structural design of the base to the water basin itself to accommodate loadings and to counter any possible ground movements if required; infiltration design based upon BRE365 at the base of the infiltration feature; ( d ) structural design of the base to the water basin itself to accommodate loadings and to counter any possible ground movements; ( e ) provisions for long term maintenance of the basin including access arrangements for servicing of forebay and all manholes; and ( f ) designs and slope stability analysis demonstrating compliance with EC7 for the slopes of the upper attenuation basin; and, ( g ) details of provision for telemetry to mitigate the risk of overtopping . No works (excluding Enabling Works) above ground level shall be carried out until the attenuation basin has been constructed in accordance with the approved details and the associated connections to the approved pumping station completed and are operationa l. 16) No further development shall commence beyond the access works already implemented until a noise assessment for the pumping station has been submitted to , and approved in writing , by the Local Planning Authority. Where necessary, following approval of the noise assessment the applicant must submit a detailed scheme to control the noise which must be approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved scheme must then be implemented and maintained for the duration of the development. 17) No further development shall commence, beyond the access works already implemented, until the ground stabilisation works granted under planning permission P24/2642/FUL have been completed, and the verification reports required under condition 4 of th e permission has been submitted to the Local Planning Authority. End of Schedule for Appeal B⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
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…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3361685 (London Borough of Croydon) — 2026-05-29
📍 London Borough of Croydon LPA code: E09000008 PINS reference: 3361685 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 May 2026 by R Satheesan BSc PGCert MSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/L5240/X/25/3361685 12 Devon Close, Kenley CR8 5BB • The appeal is made under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development (LDC). • The appeal is made by Mr Aliano against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Croydon. • The application ref 24/03759/LP, dated 30 October 2024, was refused by notice dated 11 November 2024. • The application was made under section 192(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). • The development for which a certificate of lawful use or development is sought is a “ Proposed hip to gable end loft conversion with rear dormer .” Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and attached to this decision is a certificate of lawful use or development describing the proposed operation which is found to be lawful. Preliminary Matters 2. The certificate seeks to establish whether the works would have been lawful on the date of the application. In an application for an LDC , the onus is on the applicant to provide all the relevant information and evidence to support their case. On appeal, the Inspector’s role is to decide whether, on the evidence, the Council’s refusal to issue an LDC was well - founded. The case must be consi dered solely on the facts of the case, the relevant planning law and judicial authority, and its planning merits are of no relevance. The appellant must show, on the balance of probabilities, that the development proposed would, at the date of application, be lawful. 3. The Council originally raised an objection that the plans submitted do not show that the new side - facing windows will be obscure - glazed and non - opening up to 1.7m above finished floor levels. In response to this the appellant confirms that the side - facing window in the new gable w ill compl y with the condition at B.2 (c) , and condition C.2 (a) and (b), Class C of Part 1, Schedule 2 of the GPDO. The Council have confirmed that this addresses their concern, and I find no reason to disagree with th is conclusion . Main Issue 4. The main issue is whether the Council’s refusal to grant the LDC was well founded. It is necessary to consider whether the proposed extension would be granted planning permission by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended (GPDO) . Appeal Decision APP/L5240/X/25/3361685 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Reasons 5. The appeal property comprises a semi - detached bungalow located on the corner junction of Devon Close and Godstone Road. It includes a tiled hipped roof and bay window and forms a symmetrical pair with the adjoining semi - detached bungalow at No 11 Devon Close. The main entrance door faces towards Godstone Road. However, similar to all other properties in the Close, access to the front door is via the front entrance steps on Devon Close. 6. Subject to limitations and conditions, Class B of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the GPDO permits ‘ the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse ’, and Class B of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the GPDO permits ‘additions etc to the roof of a dwellinghouse’. 7. The Council determined that the proposed roof extension fails to meet Part B.1(c) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B of the GPDO . The relevant restriction under Part B.1(c) sta tes that development is not permitted development if “ any part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, extend beyond the plane of any existing roof slope which form the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse and fronts a highway .” 8. The Council consider that Godstone Road , which contains the front entrance door and has the wider frontage is the principal elevation , whereas the appellant considers that the De v on Close elevation , containing the front main bay window , and the entrance path for the dwelling is the principal elevation. Therefore, the appeal turns on what the original principal elevation is . The burden of proof in this matter lies with the appellant. 9. The Government’s Technical Guidance (TG) 1 provides a useful guide to interpretation of the GPDO . The TG gives an explanation of the rules on permitted development for householders, what these mean and how they should be applied in particular sets of circumstances. In the guidance for “principal elevation” it states: “In most cases the principal elevation will be that part of the house which fronts (directly or at an angle) the main highway serving the house (the main highway will be the one that sets the postcode for the house concerned). It will usually contain the m ain architectural features such as main bay windows or a porch serving the main entrance to the house. Usually, but not exclusively, the principal elevation will be what is understood to be the front of the house. There will only be one principal elevation on a house. Where there are two elevations which may have the character of a principal elevation, for example on a corner plot, a view will need to be taken as to which of these forms the principal elevation.” 10. The TG described Highway as “a public right of way such as a public road, public footpath and bridleway. For the purposes of the Order, it also includes unadopted streets or private ways.” 11. The above guidance makes clear that in “most cases” the principal elevation will be elevation fronting the main highway but also allows for scenarios where this is not the case , such as corner plots . It is therefore a matter of planning judgement based on the particular facts of the case. 1 The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s publication ‘Permitted Development Rights for Householders’ Technical Guidance, September 2019 . Appeal Decision APP/L5240/X/25/3361685 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 12. T he main architectural features of this property are the front bay window, the hipped roof (both of which are paired with the adjoining semi - detached property at No 11 Devon Close) and the front entrance steps leading up to the front doors. Indeed, the appeal b ungalow is one of a group of 12 bungalows, set out in 6 semi - detached pairs, around Devon Close. All of the bungalows follow the same broad design, with a bay window and steps on the front elevation and the main entrance door to the side. 13. T he Godstone Road elevation , overall has a largely utilitarian appearance, without any significant architectural features , contain ing a mismatch different sized windows ((including the bathroom window) with no formal arrangement. I note that the front door of the property is located on this elevation . However, all other main features of the property and the layout of other bungalows in Close indicate that the property’s principal elevation is the Devon Close elevation. The fact that the garage is also located on th e Godstone Road elevation does not assist the Council , since garages, are often located towards the rear of properties on corner plots. 14. I appreciate that the Godstone Road elevation is wider than the Devon Close elevation. N evertheless , many properties are deeper than they are wide. This is therefore not determinative of what is the front elevation. 15. In addition, the Council previously issued LDCs for roof extensions to No’s 6, 8 and 9 Devon Close . The satellite photograph provided demonstrates that all 3 of these roof extensions have been built in the ‘rear’ roof slopes , and to the back of the Devon Close elevations. I n those three scenarios the Council did not consider that the front elevation was the elevati on containing the main entrance door , and I find no reason to disagree with th e Council’s conclusions in those other LDC s . 16. Furthermore, the postal address of the property is 12 Devon Close, and the postcode ‘CR8 5BB’ covers all of the 12 semi - detached properties on Devon Close. This adds further weight that the principal elevation is the one facing towards Devon Close. 17. The Council have provided 4 appeal decisions from Hertfordshire, Hillingdon and Redbridge Council in support of their case that the principal elevation can differ from the postal address . 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 conditions of Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Clas ses B and C of the GPDO, and from my reading of the plans, I find no reason to disagree with these findings . Appeal Decision APP/L5240/X/25/3361685 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 Conclusion 20. For the reasons given above I conclude, on the evidence now available, that the Council’s refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development in respect of the p roposed hip to gable end loft conversion with rear dormer was not well - founded and that the appeal should succeed. I exercise the powers transferred to me under section 195(2) of the 1990 Act as amended. R Satheesan INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/L5240/X/25/3361685 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 Lawful Development Certificate TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990: SECTION 192 (as amended by Section 10 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991) TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2015: ARTICLE 39 IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that on 30 October 2024 the operations described in the First Schedule hereto in respect of the land specified in the Second Schedule hereto and edged in red on the plan attached to this certificate, would have been lawful within the meaning of section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), for the following reason: The development is “permitted development” falling within Class es B and C of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 for which planning permission is granted by Article 3(1) of that Order. Signed R Satheesan INSPECTOR Date: 29 May 2026 Reference: APP/L5240/X/25/3361685 First Schedule Proposed hip to gable end loft conversion with rear dormer Second Schedule Land at 12 Devon Close, Kenley CR8 5BB IMPORTANT NOTES – SEE OVER Appeal Decision APP/L5240/X/25/3361685 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 NOTES This certificate is issued solely for the purpose of Section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). It certifies that the use /operations described in the First Schedule taking place on the land specified in the Second Schedule would have been lawful, on the certified date and, thus, was /were not liable to enforcement action, under section 172 of the 19 90 Act, on that date. This certificate applies only to the extent of the use /operations described in the First Schedule and to the land specified in the Second Schedule and identified on the attached plan. Any use /operation which is materially different from that described, o r which relates to any other land, may result in a breach of planning control which is liable to enforcement action by the local planning authority. The effect of the certificate is subject to the provisions in section 192(4) of the 1990 Act, as amended, which state that the lawfulness of a specified use or operation is only conclusively presumed where there has been no material change, before the use is instituted or the operations begun, in any of the matters which were relevant to the decision about lawfulness. Appeal Decision APP/L5240/X/25/3361685 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 Plan This is the plan referred to in the Lawful Development Certificate dated: 29 May 2026 by R Satheesan Land at: 12 Devon Close, Kenley CR8 5BB Reference: APP/L5240/X/25/3361685 Scale: Not to Scale⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
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…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3361235 (London Borough of Croydon) — 2026-05-29
📍 London Borough of Croydon LPA code: E09000008 PINS reference: 3361235 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 May 2026 by R Satheesan BSc PGCert MSc MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/L5240/X/25/ 3361235 3 Park Road, Kenley CR8 5AS • The appeal is made under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development (LDC). • The appeal is made by Mr Andrew Mackenzie against the decision of the Council of the London Borough of Croydon. • The application ref 24/03973/LP, dated 2 November 2024, was refused by notice dated 15 January 2025. • The application was made under section 192(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). • The development f or which a certificate of lawful use or development is sought is for the “ Formation of outbuilding to rear garden .” Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and attached to this decision is a certificate of lawful use or development describing the proposed operation which is found to be lawful. Preliminary Matters 2. The certificate seeks to establish whether the works would have been lawful on the date of the application. In an application for an LDC, the onus is on the applicant to provide all the relevant information and evidence to support their case. On appeal, th e Inspector’s role is to decide whether, on the evidence, the Council’s refusal to issue an LDC was well - founded. The case must be considered solely on the facts of the case, the relevant planning law and judicial authority, and its planning merits are of no relevance. The appellant must show, on the balance of probabilities, that the development proposed would, at the date of application, be lawful. 3. The proposed description of development (DoD) differs between the application form and the Council’s decision notice. I have determined this appeal on the basis of the DoD set out in the application form. Main Issue 4. The main issue is whether the Council’s refusal to grant the LDC was well founded. It is necessary to consider whether the proposed outbuilding would be granted planning permission by Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as amended (GPDO). Reasons 5. The appeal property is a detached chalet bungalow with 2 dormer windows in the roof space. The appellant seeks to establish that the proposed outbuilding would Appeal Decision APP/L5240/X/25/3361235 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 be granted permission by virtue of Class E of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the GPDO. Subject to limitations, Class E permits “buildings etc incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse.” 6. The Council determined that the proposed outbuilding fails to meet Part E.1 (c) of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the GPDO. Part E. 1(c) states that development is not permitted by Class E if any part of the building, enclosure, pool or container would be situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse . For the purposes of the GPDO “original” means (a) in relation to a building, other than a building which is Crown land, existing on 1st July 1948, as existing on that date; (b) in relation to a building, other than a building which is Crown land, built on or after 1st July 1948, as so built . 7. The parties disagree on what constitutes the principal elevation for the purpose of permitted development rights under Class E of the GPDO. The Council consider that the elevation facing towards Ravenswold to be the principal elevation , primarily due to the presence of the front door and vehicular driveway on this elevation. They have referred to another appeal decision from Wyre Forest District Council in support of their case that the principal elevation is usually what is understood to be the front of the house. 8. In contrast the appellant states that the elevation which faces towards the Park Road , which sets the post code for this property, and contains two bay windows is the principal elevation. Therefore, t he main issue is which elevation is the principal one . The burden of proof in this matter lies with the appellant. 9. The Government’s Technical Guidance (TG) 1 provides a useful guide to interpretation of the GPDO . The TG gives an explanation of the rules on permitted development for householders, what these mean and how they should be applied in particular sets of circumstances. In the guidance for “principal elevation” it states: “In most cases the principal elevation will be that part of the house which fronts (directly or at an angle) the main highway serving the house (the main highway will be the one that sets the postcode for the house concerned). It will usually contain the m ain architectural features such as main bay windows or a porch serving the main entrance to the house. Usually, but not exclusively, the principal elevation will be what is understood to be the front of the house. There will only be one principal elevation on a house. Where there are two elevations which may have the character of a principal elevation, for example on a corner plot, a view will need to be taken as to which of these forms the principal elevation.” 10. The above guidance makes clear that in “most cases” the principal elevation will be elevation fronting the main highway but also allows for scenarios where this is not the case. It is therefore a matter of planning judgement based on the particular facts o f the case. 11. It is clear from the evidence submitted , including the land registry plan , and the TPO plan submitted that that the original property formerly comprised a larger plot of land with a relatively long front garden fronting Park Road. I n the front section of that front garden a new dwellinghouse has been created . 1 The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s publication ‘Permitted Development Rights for Householders’ Technical Guidance, September 2019 . Appeal Decision APP/L5240/X/25/3361235 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 12. F ollowing the subdivision and separation of part of the original plot of land which fronts Park Road, the front door and driveway is now located on the Ravenswold facing elevation , rather than the Park Road elevation . While the se changes appear to have changed how the building now functions, what is relevant is the principal elevation of the “original” dwellinghouse . 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 conditions of Article 3, Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the GPDO, and from my reading of the plans, I find no reason to disagree with these findings . Conclusion 1. For the reasons given above I conclude, on the evidence now available, that the Council’s refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development in respect of the “ Formation of outbuilding to rear garden ” was not well - founded and that the appeal should succeed. I exercise the powers transferred to me under section 195(2) of the 1990 Act as amended. R Satheesan INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/L5240/X/25/3361235 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 Lawful Development Certificate TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990: SECTION 192 (as amended by Section 10 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991) TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2015: ARTICLE 39 IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that on 2 November 2024 the operations described in the First Schedule hereto in respect of the land specified in the Second Schedule hereto and edged in red on the plan attached to this certificate, would have been lawful within the meaning of section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), for the following reason: The development is “permitted development” falling within Class E of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 for which planning permission is granted by Article 3(1) of that Order. Signed R Satheesan INSPECTOR Date: 29 May 2026 Reference: APP/L5240/X/25/3361235 First Schedule Formation of outbuilding to rear garden Second Schedule Land at 3 Park Road, K enley CR8 5AS IMPORTANT NOTES – SEE OVER Appeal Decision APP/L5240/X/25/3361235 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 NOTES This certificate is issued solely for the purpose of Section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). It certifies that the use /operations described in the First Schedule taking place on the land specified in the Second Schedule would have been lawful, on the certified date and, thus, was /were not liable to enforcement action, under section 172 of the 19 90 Act, on that date. This certificate applies only to the extent of the use /operations described in the First Schedule and to the land specified in the Second Schedule and identified on the attached plan. Any use /operation which is materially different from that described, o r which relates to any other land, may result in a breach of planning control which is liable to enforcement action by the local planning authority. The effect of the certificate is subject to the provisions in section 192(4) of the 1990 Act, as amended, which state that the lawfulness of a specified use or operation is only conclusively presumed where there has been no material change, before the use is instituted or the operations begun, in any of the matters which were relevant to the decision about lawfulness. Appeal Decision APP/L5240/X/25/3361235 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 Plan This is the plan referred to in the Lawful Development Certificate dated: 29 May 2026 by R Satheesan Land at: 3 Park Road, K enley CR8 5AS Reference: APP/L5240/X/25/3361235 Scale: Not to Scale⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
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…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3350509 (London Borough of Merton) — 2026-05-29
📍 London Borough of Merton LPA code: E09000024 PINS reference: 3350509 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning- inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 May 2026 by Robert Naylor BSc (Hons) MPhil MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/T5720/C/24/3350509 45 Gladstone Road, London SW19 1QU • The appeal is made under section 174 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (the 1990 Act) as amended. AdobeUCS &&(()),,--..//0011223344558899AABBCCDDEEIIJJLLMMOOPPSS[[]]aabbccddeeffgghhiikkllmmnnoopprrssttuuvvww••yy” • The appeal is made by Mr Philippe Fezans against an enforcement notice issued by the Council of the London Borough of Merton. • The notice was issued on 19 July 2024. • The breach of planning control as alleged in the notice is without planning permission and within the last four years, the erection of a roof extension including hip- to - gable, 2 rear dormers and the raising of the roof ridgeline. • The requirements of the notice are: (a) Permanently reduce the ridgeline to its original height prior to the breach of planning control as shown on the photo as appendix LBM1. (b) Permanently remove from the Land all materials, rubbish and debris associated with compliance arising from step 5 (a) above. • The period for compliance with the requirements is: within 3 months from the date this notice takes effect. • The appeal is proceeding on the ground set out in section 174(2)(a) of the 1990 Act (as amended). Since an appeal has been brought on ground (a), an application for planning permission is deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the Act. Formal Decision 1. The appeal is allowed, the enforcement notice is quashed and planning permission is granted on the application deemed to have been made under section 177(5) of the 1990 Act (as amended) for the development already carried out, namely the erection of a roof extension including hip- to - gable, 2 rear dormers and the raising of the roof ridgeline at 45 Gladstone Road, London SW19 1QU . Preliminary Matters 2. Since the Council issued the enforcement notice, the new Merton Local Plan 20 24 \226 2037/38 ( M LP) has been adopted in November 2024. As such, I have taken it into account in my decision. Appeal under ground (a), the deemed planning application Main Issue 3. The main issue is the effect of the retention of the roof extension on the character and appearance of the host property and the street scene ; and whether it preserves or enhances the adjacent Bertram Cottages conservation area ( BC CA). Reasons Character and appearance and impact on the BCCA 4. The significance of the BCCA is principally derived from special architectural - artistic merit. The cottages are built of London stock brick with slate roofs and Appeal Decision APP/T5720/C/24/3350509 https://www.gov.uk/planning- inspectorate 2 white painted timber framed windows and doors. Chimney stacks of London stock separate each pair, with many of the cottages retaining original features. The cottages are two storeys, arranged in symmetrical pairs, most pairs sharing a central projecting ga ble end, which houses the front entrance. At the first floor level the gables exhibit blank brickwork decorated with a diagonal pattern in red brick. 5. R esidential development continues beyond the BCCA to the north and south, on the eastern side of Gladstone Road and the western side of Hartfield Road, the latter also including larger scale commercial properties. The appeal site is sited in Gladstone Road which is located within a short distance to the main commercial area of Wimbledon town centre. Whilst the appeal site adjoins the BCCA, it is nevertheless located outside the BCCA boundary as shown on the submitted conservation area map and confirmed by t he Council in their questionnaire. 6. The appeal site is a semi - detached property with a traditional appearance, which is similar in scale and age to Bertram Cottages . Nevertheless, the boundaries are clearly delineated because of the unique character of Bertram Cottages themselves, the only exception being at the south- west corner of the conservation a rea, where a pair of 19th century houses, Nos. 112 to 114 Hartfield Road, have also been included. 7. The appellant applied for planning permission1 in December 2022 for the conversion of the roof space and raising the ridge height. In terms of the height increase at the ridge this amounted to 25cm in order that usable headroom was obtained within the roof extension. The Council refused th e application, consider ing the scale, design, form and raising of the ridge height, failed to preserve or enhance the adjacent BCCA , and harmed the character of the host dwelling and street scene . 8. The appellant redesigned the roof conversion, including lower ing the ceilings internally in order that the development would meet with the \221permitted development\222 (PD) requirements of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (the GPDO). This w as constructed prior to obtaining a lawful development certificate (LDC) . 9. The appellant subsequently sought a n LDC2 under section 191 of the 1990 Act (as amended) following the completion of the works, for an existing gable and dormer loft conversion. However, during the construction phase the provision of modern ridge tiles created a minor increase of approximately 5cm above the original ridgeline. Both parties acknowledge that the development as constructed exceed t he tolerance of PD as set out in the GPDO. The question, therefore, is whether the development as constructed would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the host property, the street scene and the setting of the adjoining BCCA. 10. Paragraph 219 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) requires new development within the setting of conservation a reas to enhance or better reveal its significance. The Framework defines the setting of a heritage asset as \223 the surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced.\224 1 London Borough of Merton Planning Ref: 22/P3698 2 London Borough of Merton Planning Ref: 24/P0508 Appeal Decision APP/T5720/C/24/3350509 https://www.gov.uk/planning- inspectorate 3 11. The B ertram Cottages Boundary Assessment3 highlights that the houses beyond the north and south boundaries in Gladstone Road (including the appeal site) , are terraced or semi - detached, two storey 19th century houses of conventional design, with ground floor bay windows and other features which are found in many of the streets surrounding Wimbledon town centre and in other parts of south London. As such, they do not appear to be sufficiently distinctive to merit inclusion within the conservation area. Many of these properties have also been subject to external alterations at ground floor and roof levels. 12. During my site visit I noted several rear dormer and other roof extensions of varying sizes and forms in G lad stone Road just outside the BCCA . Case law4 has established that proposals must be judged according to their effect on a conservation area as a whole and must therefore have a moderate degree of prominence. 13. G iven the tight nature of the properties in Gladstone Road and the BCCA , views of the rear from public vantage points are extremely restricted and limited to glimpses only. Nevertheless, w hilst the rear elevations are not as prominent as the front, m any of the other roof extensions in Gladstone Road also appear to have raised the ridgeline. This feature is more visible and prominent from the front and street scene . Whilst I have not been provided with the planning history in respect to these developments, they do provide variation to the ridgelines outside the BCCA. By contrast, the minor increase of the ridgeline at the appeal site relative to these others is almost imperceptible . 14. Given that the properties outside the BCCA boundary, are not considered to be sufficiently distinctive to merit inclusion within the conservation area, these relatively minor alterations at roof level , in my view, do not detract from the Gladstone Road street scene or the architectural interest and thus the significance of the BCCA . 15. Whilst I acknowledge that the development at the appeal site is larger than allowed under PD , th e minor increase to the ridgeline is relatively innocuous . Furthermore, the design of the development is read within the context of the existing area, and the development does not appear as an incongruous feature. As a result, the alterations to the roof subject to this appeal cause no harm to the character, appearance or significance of the BC CA, and are compatible with the local character, building proportions, form, materials and detailing. 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. Conditions 18. Given that the proposal is retrospective and is acceptable in terms of design and materiality, there is no need to attach the standard time limit, approved plans or a materials condition. Overall Conclusion 19. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal succeed s on ground (a). I shall grant planning permission for the development as described in the notice . The enforcement notice will be quashed. Robert Naylor INSPECTOR⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
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…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3345792 (Cornwall Council) — 2026-05-29
📍 Cornwall Council LPA code: E06000052 PINS reference: 3345792 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site Visit made on 17 February 2026 by J Whitfield BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 29 th May 2026 Appeal Ref: APP/D0840/X/24/3345792 Little Halabezack Barn, Polhigey, Redruth, Cornwall TR16 6PH • The appeal is made under section 195 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the Act) against a refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development (LDC). • The appeal is made by Mr & Mrs Simon & Karen Trewin against the decision of Cornwall Council. • The application ref PA24/01246, dated 15 February 2024, was refused by notice dated 26 April 2024. • The application was made under section 191(1)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). • The development for which a certificate of lawful use or development is sought is the construction of a building used for purposes ancillary to the keeping of horses. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and attached to this decision is a certificate of lawful use or development describing the existing operation which is found to be lawful. Preliminary Matters 2. The application was made under S191(b) of the Act, that being an application for an LDC for an existing operation. The development is described in the application as “the construction of a building used for purposes ancillary to the keeping of horses”. 3. The LPA’s decision notice, however, describes the development as an application for an LDC “for an existing use in respect to the construction of building used for purposes ancillary to the keeping of horses.” The LPA’s reason for refusal centres around the use of the building. That suggests the LPA considered the application on the basis it had been made under S191(a) of the Act. Nonetheless, it is incumbent on to me to determine the appeal on the basis of the application that was made. I will determine it under S191(b) of the Act accordingly. Main Issue 4. The main issue is whether the LPA’s decision to refuse the LDC application was well - founded. Reasons 5. S191(2) of the Act establishes that operations are lawful at any time if – (a) no enforcement action may then be taken in respect of them (whether because they did not involve development or require planning permission or because the time for enforcement action has expired or for any other r eason); and (b) they do not constitute a contravention of any of the requirements of any enforcement notice then in force. Appeal Decision APP/D0840/X/24/3345792 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 6. In accordance with the relevant time limits set out in S171B of the Act, having regard to the transitional arrangements contained therein, it is necessary for the appellant s to demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, that the construction of a building used for purposes ancillary to the keeping of horses was substantially completed on or before 15 February 2020. 7. The appellant s set out in a Statutory Declaration from July 2023 that the building was built from June 2016 to June 2017. The LPA indicates that the LPA’s Building Regulations Approval records the building as complete on 20 June 2018. On that basis, the LPA does not dispute that the building was substantially completed in 2017, some time before the relevant date of 15 February 2020. 8. Nevertheless, t he LPA argues that it has not been demonstrated, on the balance of probabilities, that the building has been used for purposes ancillary to the keeping of horses. The LPA says that, subsequent to the completion of the building in 2017, it has been subject to further works which include the installation of an oil boiler with central heating, bathroom facilities, a kitchen, the provision of a wooden floor laid in a herringbone pattern, together with alterations to the exterior and an extensive re - wiring of the building with the provision of domestic style sockets. The LPA says those works commenced in May 2022 and have not been completed. 9. However, the LPA accepts the building was substantially completed prior to February 2020 . Thus, it follows that the subsequent works identified were new works to a substantially completed building and not part and parcel of the works to achieve substantial completion. 10. The question must then be whether those subsequent works in themselves constitute development. The installation of an oil boiler with central heating, bathroom facilities, a kitchen, the provision of a wooden floor laid in a herringbone pattern and an extensive re - wiring of the building with the provision of domestic style sockets are all works which affect only the inter ior of the building. Thus, in accordance with S 55 (2)(a)(i) of the Act, they do not constitute development. 11. The LPA says that external alterations have also been carried out to the building. Little detail of what external alterations the LPA considered have been carried out subsequent to substantial completion of the building has been provided. There is a photograph below which it states that the stable door has been bricked up in the north el evation which ha s allowed for window openings. However, there is little detail before me of the extent of such works , or whether they have materially affected the external a ppearance of the building. It seems to me, on the balance of probabilities, that the extent of any works to change the size of the openings i s de - minimis such that it has mean t the building was not substantially completed . 12. Ultimately, t he corollary of the LPA submissions is that the building is not ancillary to the keeping of horses as it provides facilities above and beyond what would typically be expected. However, the appellant ' s ’ evidence is that heating is required to ensure tack and equipment is maintained appropriately and to provide hot water for people using the building for equestrian purposes. Both seem reasonable expectations to me. 13. Moreover, it seems reasonable to me for new electrics to have been installed for equestrian use. Similarly, facilities such as a shower or toilet for those undertaking Appeal Decision APP/D0840/X/24/3345792 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 equestrian use from the building and surrounding land , whilst not essential feature s , seem to me can reasonably be required. 14. In terms of the kitchen, the appellant s state that it does not include any oven, hob, dishwasher, tumble dryer, microwave or any other features linked to a full functioning kitchen area. Whilst a fridge was present at the time , it seems to me that is reasonably required for the storage of fresh or refrigerated foods. It is not unreasonable for those involved in equestrian activities to spend long periods of time and may need facilities to store cold items. Moreover, the provision of kitchen style cupboards could be used for anything relating to equestrian use. Finally, in terms of the alleged high standard of finish in terms of features, such as the flooring and walls, again the appellant s submit that it is not uncommon for tack rooms to be finished to a high standard. It seems to me that there is no reason why such a facility could not be finished to a high standard. It is ultimately an internal sp a ce for people to use for equestrian activities . It is not unreasonable for it to be finished to a standard which makes that space comfortable to use. 15. Ultimately, t he fact that the building internally may indeed provide facilities of a higher standard than may typically be expected does not change , to my mind , the fact that the building was substantially completed in its form at the date of the LDC application on or before 15 February 2020. 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 contravention of any of the requirements of any enforcement notice then in force. Conclusion 19. For the reasons given above, I conclude , on the evidence now available, that the LPA ’s refusal to grant a certificate of lawful use or development for the construction of a building used for purposes ancillary to the keeping of horses is not well - founded and that the appeal should succeed. I will exercise accordingly the powers transferred to me in S 195(2) of the 1990 Act (as amended). J Whitfield INSPECTOR 1 Gravesham VC v SSE & O’Brien [1983 ] JPL 306 Appeal Decision APP/D0840/X/24/3345792 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 Lawful Development Certificate TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990: SECTION 191 (as amended by Section 10 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991) TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT PROCEDURE) (ENGLAND) ORDER 2015: ARTICLE 39 IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that on 15 February 2024 the operations described in the First Schedule hereto in respect of the land specified in the Second Schedule hereto and edged in red on the plan attached to this certificate, were lawful within the meaning of section 191(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended), for the following reason: The building was substantially completed four years before the LDC application was made and was therefore lawful as (a) no enforcement action may then have been taken in respect of the building operations and (b) the building operations did not constitute a contravention of any of the requirements of any enforcement notice then in force. Signed J Whitfield Inspector Date: 29 th May 2026 Reference: APP/D0840/X/24/3345792 First Schedule T he construction of a building used for purposes ancillary to the keeping of horses. Second Schedule Little Halabezack Barn, Polhigey, Redruth, Cornwall TR16 6PH IMPORTANT NOTES – SEE OVER Appeal Decision APP/D0840/X/24/3345792 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 NOTES This certificate is issued solely for the purpose of Section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). It certifies that the operations described in the First Schedule taking place on the land specified in the Second Schedule were lawful, on the certified date and, thus, were not liable to enforcement action, under section 172 of the 1990 Act, on that date. This certificate applies only to the extent of the operations described in the First Schedule and to the land specified in the Second Schedule and identified on the attached plan. Any u se or operation which is materially different from that described, or which relates to any other land, may result in a breach of planning control which is liable to enforcement action by the local planning authority. Appeal Decision APP/D0840/X/24/3345792 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 Plan This is the plan referred to in the Lawful Development Certificate dated : 29 th May 2026 by J Whitfield BA(Hons) DipTP MRTPI Land at: Little Halabezack Barn, Polhigey, Redruth, Cornwall TR16 6PH Reference: APP/D0840/X/24/3345792 Scale: Not to Scale⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
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…
⚖️ 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.