🏆 Winning Arguments

20. Given that I have concluded that the land can be considered as grey belt the main issues in this appeal are: 1) the effect of the development on the character and appearance of the surrounding area, with particular regard to the appeal site’s location within the Kent Downs National Landscape, and also due to its proximity to Ancient Woodland; and 2) the occupier’s personal circumstances along with other relevant considerations.

Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The recognised unmet need at the current time is a concern but the environmental policies relating to the Kent Downs National Landscape, the Metropolitan Green Belt, along with the Framework’s Grey Belt criteria, and the general character and appearance considerations, suggest that the deemed planning application should be refused. 53. However, I must also balance this with the family’s personal circumstances. As mentioned, the needs and interests of children – in this case a small baby - are a primary consideration, particularly in terms of health care as education is unlikely to be an issue for a few years yet. This cannot be satisfied with a roadside existence, and a settled base, at least in the short term, is obviously important to their wellbeing. 54. Alongside this, the Council’s approach, by way of emerging policy is an indication that the authority is attempting to meet its statutory requirements by way of allocations to help meet the actual degree of unmet need. Given this gypsy strategy and the loca…

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

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

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

6. The main issue in the determination of this appeal is therefore the effect on the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area, including any effect on wintering birds.

Conditions 23 and 24 state that no burning of materials shall take place on site during construction, demolition or site preparation works, and that dust shall be managed, both to prevent nuisance to neighbouring occupiers. Condition 25 requires that vehicles related to the construction of the development not be parked off-site. This is to prevent obstruction of the public highway. 26. Condition 26 requires the implementation of a programme of archaeological works at the site. Condition 27 secures minimum accessibility standards for the housing at the site. Condition 28 requires minimum space standards for each new home to be built as part of the development. Condition 29 secures completion of the approved access before occupation of the development. https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 5 Appeal Decision APP/M2840/W/25/3366989 27. Condition 30 requires the submission and approval of a Great Crested Newt NonLicensed Method Statement, with the development proceeding in accordance with its conclusions. It was suggested at the hearing that consultee responses did away with this requirement. However, the Nature Development response of 14 May 2024 seeks further information on Great …

The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for proposed

6. The main issue in the determination of this appeal is therefore the effect on the Upper Nene Valley Gravel Pits Special Protection Area, with particular regard to wintering birds.

The development would be sited alongside an existing industrial area with a wide access road leading to the highway. The highways consultee reviewed the submitted evidence and raised no objection to the development in terms of traffic generation. While the development would result in an increase in traffic, I visited the site on 4 occasions at different times of day before and after the Hearing and did not see anything to lead me to find otherwise. 17. Shortly before the Hearing opened Anglian Water raised concerns over the proximity of one of the proposed buildings to their infrastructure. This was discussed at the Hearing, and it was confirmed that the pipe had been accounted for in the layout of the development, including canting one corner of the nearest building to avoid intruding on the safeguarded area. Conditions 18. The appellants and council discussed the proposed conditions at length, and they were discussed further at the Hearing. I have reviewed the conditions in accordance with the tests set out in national planning practice guidance and, where necessary, amended the wording of co Conclusion 26. The appeal proposal accords with the development plan. There are no mate…

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for a mixed use

The other proposed houses would be further from their nearest existing houses so would likewise not cause unacceptable harm to the living conditions of existing residents. 1 2 Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/M2840/W/25/3366989 Planning Inspectorate ref: APP/M2840/W/25/3366988 https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2 Appeal Decisions APP/M2840/W/25/3364729 and APP/M2840/W/25/3364730 12. Ecology matters were considered at outline stage, and permission was granted subject to a condition requiring that a Construction Environmental Management Plan to be followed during development be approved prior to commencement. 13. A deed of variation has been agreed between the parties. This varies the Section 106 agreement that accompanies the outline planning permission on the site to allow details of the affordable housing provider to be agreed prior to commencement of the development. This does not alter the overall nature of the development, nor the other obligations set out in the agreement. 14. There are therefore no issues to lead to me find otherwise than that both developments are acceptable. Conclusion 18. The appeal proposals accord with the development plan, and there are no reasons …

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

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

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

19. However, the appeal scheme before me is materially different to that which preceded it to the planning appeal stage and is absent the extent of tarmac, gravel and granite setts, together with the length of driveway extending across the grassed paddock / field previously proposed. I also have some sympathy with the appellant’s position that, having applied for a hedgerow removal notice9, the Council’s conclusion that the hedge was ‘not important’ assessed against the Schedule 1 criteria of the Regulations10 and could thus be removed to facilitate the now revised scheme, made the carrying out of the appeal scheme not wholly intentional. Whilst mindful of the provisions of Framework 2026 Policy DM8, I am not persuaded that the appellant’s actions amount to the degree of intentional unauthorised development envisaged by the Framework 2026. Conclusion 24. For the reasons given above, I conclude that the appeal should succeed on ground (a), and I shall grant planning permission for the development as described in the notice and the application deemed to have been made under ground (a). The notice will be quashed and it follows that the appeal on ground (f) does not fall to be consid…

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

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