🏆 Winning Arguments
Real PINS Inspector reasoning from appeals where refusals on Ecology 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 Ecology was OVERTURNED (national).
Each card quotes the inspector's reasoning verbatim — drop directly into your appeal statement as precedent (with proper attribution).
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3332713 (Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area *) — 2024-05-02
📍 Buckinghamshire Council - Aylesbury Area * PINS reference: 3332713 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 25 March 2024 by A Hickey MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 Langlands, Chivery , Aston Clinton , Buckinghamshire HP23 6LD The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr Liam Bond against the decision of Buckinghamshire Council - North Area (Aylesbury). The application Ref is 23/00439/APP. The development proposed is d emolition of existing dwelling and site buildings, erection of replacement dwelling house with associated infrastructure, landscaping and ecological enhancement works. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing dwelling and site buildings, erection of replacement dwelling house with associated infrastructure, landscaping and ecological enhancement works at Langla nds, Chivery, Aston Clinton, Buckinghamshire HP23 6LD in accordance with the terms of the application , Ref is 23/00439/APP , subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matters 2. I have taken the appeal site address from the decision notic e as it most accurately reflects the site location. 3. Since the lodging of the appeal, a revised National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) has been published. This has not raised any new matters which are determinative in this appeal. 4. On 22 November 2023, all designated Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty designation and policy status of AONBs are unchanged. I have accordingly referred to the Chilterns AONB as the Chilterns National Landscape (CNL) in my decision. 5. provided in relation to biodiversity 1 . While not before the Council at the time of their decision, they were provided at the outset of the a ppeal. As such, the Council and other parties have had opportunity to comment on them and would not be prejudiced by my taking them into account in my reasoning. 1 Biodiversity Net Gain Report: dated September 2023, prepared by ecology by design. Biodiversity Metric. Ecological Impact Assessment (non - EIA): dated October 2023, Prepared by ecology by design. Existing & Proposed Hard Surface (Stage 3) Rev 3 plan: dated 03 September 2023. Ancient Woodland letter: dated November 2023, prepared by Ecology by Design and Landscape & Ecology Management summary: 15 dated September 2023, prepared by SEED landscape design ltd. Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 6. A completed and signed Unilateral Undertaking (UU) was also submitted s decision notice being issued. I return to this later. Main Issue s 7. The main issues are: whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the development plan and the Framework; the effects of the proposal upon biodiversity , including bats and trees ; and w he ther the proposal would provide a biodiversity net gain . Reasons 8. The appeal site is situated in the Metropolitan Green Belt. The proposed development would remove the existing dwelling, nearby outbuildings, and areas of hardstanding. A replacement part single part two - storey dwelling set partially below ground would then be erected . The scheme would also see a realigned driveway with a parking area and landsc aping. 9. Policy S4 of the Vale of Aylesbury Local Plan ( V ALP ) states, amongst other things, that within the Green Belt , land will be protected from inappropriate development in accordance with national policy. Policy S4 a llows for some small - scale developme nt subject to a closed number of exceptions and providing that it preserves the openness of the Green Belt and does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. Of relevance to the appeal scheme are exceptions d. and f. 10. The Framework identi fies that the fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. Development within the Green Belt is inappropriate, with certain exceptions that are set out in Framework paragraphs 154 and 15 5 . It goes on to state that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The main parties draw my attention to exceptions listed in Paragraph 1 54 at d) and g) , and I find these to be the most relevant for the purposes of this appeal. 11. E xception d) of the Framework relates to the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. The Framewor k does not provide a definition of what constitutes a materially larger replacement building. 12. V ALP Policy S4 at e xception d. supports the replacement of existing buildings in the Green Belt by new buildings that are not significantly larger in volume, nor mally by no more than 25 - 30% as measured externally of the original building (as it was first built or stood on 1 July 1948) . There is no substantive evidence before me that the host dwelling has been extended , and I have considered it to be as it was firs t built for the purposes of Policy S4 . 13. The supporting text to V ALP Policy S4 exclud es sheds and outbuildings being taken into account. While noting the wording of the Framework, the word building should not be read as excluding more than one building, providing as a matter of planning judgment , the buildings on site can sensibly be considered together in comparison with what is proposed to replace them. Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 14. In this regard, given the outbuildings are close by and used in connection with the host d welling, I see no reason why they should not be considered for the purposes of exception d. G iven the more restrictive nature of Policy S 4 , its supporting text , and in these particular circumstances , it is not wholly consistent with the Framework , only mod erate weight can be applied to it and the approach of the Framework is to be preferred. 15. I also note the appeal decisions referred to by the main parties involving the incorporation of basement s and the consideration of being materially larger. As a matter of planning judgment, the incorporation of a basement is likely to be a material consideration and for the avoidance of doubt I have taken it into account in reaching my decision. 16. The Council acknowledges that , as a whole the scheme would result in an overall reduction in footprint and volume when taking into account all ancillary buildings on site . Nonetheless, the Council consider the replacement dwelling would be materially larger than the dwelling it replaces. 17. While mathematical calculations are not definitive in determining whether a replacement building would be materially larger, they do provide an indication of the overall scale of development. In this instance, the replacement dwelling would consolidate built dev elopment across the site , reducing the footprint of buildings on site . The proposed dwelling despite being set over two - floor s would be of a modest scale and would not be close to any boundary of the appeal site and would be partially built into the ground on the slope . W hile increasing the height of development onsite it would not result in a significantly more prominent building on the land , and the replacement dwelling would not be disproportionate in size having regard to the size of the appeal site. The replacement dwelling would consequently not be materially larger than the one it replaces. 18. No definition of small - scale development for the purposes of V ALP Policy S4 is before me. I see no reason why it should not be co nsidered small - scale. Additionally, the exclu sion of sheds and outbuildings for volume increases is part of the supporting text acting as interpretative guidance to Policy S4 , but is not a part of the policy itself, and it therefore carries less weight. In any event , V ALP Policy S4 supports development, in the Green Belt, in accordance with national policy . T he compliance with Policy S4 as a whole outweighs what I consider to be a minor conflict in terms of including sheds and outbuildings , contrary to the guidance contained within paragraph 3.35 of the V ALP . 19. In reaching the above conclusion, I have had re on V ALP Policy S4 containing . However, it also does not include an at the end of each criterion. As the Council have identified , Policy S4 criteria are a more succinct version of very similar criteria in the Framework , which have not fundame ntally changed through subsequent revisions . The Framework only requires development to comply with one listed exception to not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt . Given the thrust of Policy S4 is to protect the Green Belt in accordance with na tional policy , i see no reason, in this instance, why compliance must also be achieved with an additional criterion . Albeit , I accept there may be other instances where compliance with additional criteria could be re quired. 20. For the reasons above, the proposal would not be inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework and would therefore not cause Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 harm to it. It wo uld also comply with the overall aims of V ALP Policy S4 in so far as it relates to al lowing small scale development whilst protecting the Green Belt in accordance with national policy. Moreover, since the proposal would not result in inappropriate development in the Green Belt there is no need for me to consider the impact on openness or w hether very special circumstances exist. Biodiversity 21. During my site visit , I noted that the appeal site had been cleared of some areas of vegetation and trees but was largely reflective of the plans before me . I also observed what appeared to be more rec ent footing s that , from the evidence presented , relate to an extant permission 2 (extant consent) on the site for a replacement dwelling . The appeal site and buildings are also within close proximity to an area of ancient woodland . 22. VALP Policy NE8 tree and woodland resource . It goes on to note d evelopment that would lead to an individual or cumulative significant adverse impact on ancient woodland or ancient trees will be refused unless except ional circumstances can be demonstrated that the impacts to the site are clearly outweighed by the benefits of the development. Given the proximity of the site to the ancient woodland a minimum of 50m between the ancient woodland and any built development should be retained . 23. Polic ies EN1 and EN2 of the Aston Clinton Neighbourhood Plan (ACN P), amongst other things, seek to safeguard and avoid adverse impacts on protected natural habitats and species. T he Framework emphasises the importance of natural habitats and biodiversity and lays special emphasis on protecting irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland and ancient or veteran trees. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) 3 also provides advice on appropriate buffer zones. 24. While acknowledging in relation exceptional footnote 67 of the Framework states not a closed list. In my view, it is there to assist the decisio n maker, who must have regard to a number of considerations. Moreover , whilst accept ing that both local and national policy have been updated since the extant consent was granted permission , it never the less results in a fallback position that must be given due consideration. 25. The proposed dwelling would be set back further from the ancient woodland than the extant consent for a dwelling on site . I t would include a substantial reduction in hard standing and allow for the incorporation of more native plant s pecies . B ased on th e evidence before me and my observation s on site it is highly likely should the appeal fail, the extant consent will be progressed to completion. As such, t he adverse effects would be substantially more harmful to the nearby ancient woodland than the proposed scheme. I ther e fore find that exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated as required in Policy N8 of the VALP. 26. In reaching the above conclusion , I have had regard to the re cent Tree Protection Order (ref: 23/00026/TPO). However, there is no substantive 2 Ref: 19/0 0842/APP 3 Ancient woodland, ancient trees and veteran trees: advice for making planning decisions : January 2022 Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 evidence to demonstrate scheme. Moreover, any works not covered by an exception would require permission that must be sought from the local planning authority , as would any boundary alterations or changes. 27. My atten tion has been drawn to two appeal s 4 that relate to development and ancient woodland. Whilst I do not have full details of these schemes they appear to be for a development of a greater scale and not for a replacement dwellin g such that I can draw no comparisons that lead me to reach a different conclusion on this issue. 28. Circular 06/2005 (the Circular) , referred to in paragraph 185 of the Framework, states that it is essential the presence or otherwise of protected species and the extent that they may be affected is established before planning permission is granted, otherwise all relevant material considerations may not have been addressed. The need to ensure ec ological surveys are carried out should therefore only be left to coverage under planning conditions in exceptional circumstances. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (the NERC Act) also places a duty on all public authorities to have re gard, in the exercise of their functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. 29. I have had regard to the comments regarding bats following the submission of an updated Ecological Impact Assessment 5 . The updated assessment detailed two additional surveys , which show building3 was used for foraging and lacked suitable roosting potential . There is no disagreement that buildng2 contains roosting bats and the surrounding area , including the appeal site is utilis ed for commuting and foraging . Subject to appropriate mitigation and enhancement features as detailed within the updated Ecological Impact Assessment the proposed development would not result in harm to protected species namely bats. 30. For the reasons set out above the proposal would have an acceptable effect upon biodiversity and protected species. This would be compliant with Policies NE1 of the VALP and Polic ies EN1 and EN2 of the ACNP . The proposal would also accord with chapter 15 o f the Framework , the NERC Act and the Circular. Biodiversity net gain 31. Policy NE1 of the VALP and Polic ies EN1 and EN2 of the ACNP, requires a biodiversity net gain (BNG). This will be sought by protecting, managing, enhancing and extending existing biodiv ersity resources and by creating new biodiversity resources. These policies are broadly consistent with the Framework and Planning Practice guidance in so far as they relate to conserving and enhancing the natural environment. 32. As noted above , the appellan t has provided a BNG Report and Biodiversity Metric as part of the appeal scheme. The main parties are in agreement regarding the findings of the documents, which show habitat gains through the creation of other neutral grassland and individual tree plant ing . 33. The Council's main concern is that biodiversity net gains must identify what is proposed within the application line and what is proposed outside the application line to secure the gains appropriately . 4 Appeal refs: APP/C1435/W/23/3321978 and APP/C1435/W/22/3307820 5 Ecological Impact Assessment (non - EIA) prepared by ecologybydesign dated October 2023 . Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 34. When taking into account the revised site boundary , the appeal site still appears to have sufficient space in which to accommodate planting, hedgerows , and other methods that could be employed to secure BNG. Moreover , a completed and signed UU includes obligations related to BNG on the adjoining land that while outside of the application boundary form s part of the wider site. This site could provide adequate biodiversity offsetting as required by the Council BNG SPD 6 . Therefore, a net - gain can ultimately be achieved through on - site mitigation an d/or off - site offsetting if required. 35. With the imposition of suitably worded condition s and the UU , the proposal would achieve BNG and this would be compliant with Polic y NE1 of the VALP , Polic ies EN1 and EN2 of the ACNP and the BNG SPD. The proposal would also accord with the Framework , in so far as it seeks to increase biodiversity. Other Matters 36. The appeal site falls within the zone of influence of the Chilterns Beechwood Special Area of Conservation ( SAC ) . The SAC is protected for its beech forests, semi - natural dry grasslands and scrub, and its population of stag beetles. As the competent authority in this case, I have a duty under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to consider, in the interests of the protection from harm, whether a given development would have likely significant effects on the integrity and/or special interest of the SAC either in isolation or in combination with other plans/projects. 37. New residential development within the z one of i nfluence has the p otential to adversely affect the integrity of the designated site through increased recreational pressure. As a replacement dwelling, the proposal would not result in a net increase of residential development and therefore would not lead to increased recre ational pressure. As such, I am satisfied that the proposal alone and in combination with other plans and projects would not have a likely significant effect on the SAC. 38. The appeal site is located within the CNL, where, as set out in paragraph 182 of the F ramework, great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty. T he Council did not object to the design of the replacement dwelling and based on the submitted plans and my observations onsite , I find no reason to disagree . The overall scale, massing and form of the dwelling would be inconspicuous in the wider countryside and would remove some deteriorating outbuildings . Th ese positive effect s would , therefore conserve and , to a limited degree , enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the C NL . Conditions 39. The Council have suggested that 18 conditions be imposed, which I conclude on below. In imposing conditions, I have had regard to the approach in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. Wher e pre - commencement conditions have been imposed these have been agreed by the appellant. 40. In addition to the statutory time limit condition, a condition specifying the plans that are approved and that the development shall be undertaken in accordance with t hem is required in the interests of certainty. 6 Buckinghamshire Council Biodiversity Net Gain - Supplementary Planning Document July 2022. Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 41. To protect the character and appearance of the area, it is also necessary to impose conditions requiring details of the external surfaces of the development finished floor/ground level and have these approved by the Council. For similar reasons condition on hard and soft landscaping is also required. A condition on boundary treatments is also necessary for the character and appearance of the area and the residential amenities of nearby occupiers. 42. A condition f or a BNG Report and associated Biodiversity Metric was suggested by the Council. However, given that both have been submitted as part of the appeal process and details for BNG are also required as part of the Landscape and Ecological Management Plan, this condition would not be necessary or reasonable. In the interests of safeguarding protected species, ancient woodland and habitat conditions are also required. 43. Details of water consumption are necessary in the interest of reducing water consumption. Also, a condition is necessary for the submission of a surface water drainage scheme in the interests of sustainable drainage. 44. In the interests of parking and sustainable travel options , cycle storage is required. For highway safety reasons, car parking and man oeuvring conditions are also required . 45. permitted development rights, it is possible for homeowners, in implementing these rights, to affect the character and appearance of the area. Due to the location of the site within the CNL , I consider this condition necessary. 46. I nstalling electric vehicle charge points in new homes now forms part of Building Control Regulations. It has not been explained why these regulations and controls do not satisfactorily deal with the request for a condition . As such, this suggested condition is considered unnecessary. 47. A condition on the residential curtilage has been requested. However, details are included in the plan's condition, and it is therefore not needed. Conclusion 48. For the reason set out above, the appeal is allowed. A Hickey INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 Schedule of conditions ( 1 - 16 ) 1. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 03 - 001 A Location Plan 03 - 012 A Proposed site plan 03 - 002 Existing and proposed curtilage plan ( proposed reduced domestic curtilage) 45 - 011 - A1 Proposed site plan wide 4 5 - 013 - A1 Proposed roof plan 45 - 020 - A1 Proposed floor plan 03 - 015 Site s ection diagrams 45 - 030 A1 Proposed elevations : north and east 45 - 031 A1 Proposed elevations : south and west LAC _ 005 rev A Landscape section LAC_004_rev C Feb 2023 Landscape masterplan LAC_003_rev D Landscape Design 03 - 004 Boundaries Plan 3. No development (other than the necessary testing to ascertain the ground condition) shall take place until a detailed sustainable surface water drainage scheme for the site has been submitt ed to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The details shall be based on an assessment of the potential for disposing of surface water by means of a sustainable drainage system in accordance with the principles as set out in the Technic al Guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework. It shall also include calculations and demonstrate that the surface water generated by this development can be accommodated and disposed of without discharging onto the highway and without increasing f lood risk on or off - site. The drainage scheme shall also demonstrate that the silt and pollutants resulting from the site can be adequately managed to ensure there is no pollution risk to receiving waters. 4. No work s shall be carried out on site (including site clearance and demolition) until an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) and Tree Protection Plan (TPP) has been submitted in accordance with current British Standard 5837 and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Ground protection meas ures including protective fencing shall be erected or installed prior to the commencement of any works or development on the site including any works of demolition and shall conform to current British Standard 5837 specification guidance. The approved fenc ing and/or ground protection measures shall be retained and maintained until all building, engineering or other operations have been completed. No work shall be carried out or materials stored within the fenced or protected areas without prior written agre ement from the Local Planning Authority. The development thereafter shall be implemented in strict accordance with the approved details. The AMS & TPP shall include: Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 1.) Detailed plans showing location of the protective fencing including any additional gr ound protection whether temporary or permanent; 2.) Details as to proposed access into and out of the site; - root protection areas of retained trees; 4.) All phases and timing of the project, including phasing of demolition and construction operations, in relation to arboricultural matters and details of supervision by a qualified arboriculturist and details of site supervision; and 5.) Siting of machinery, work huts and contracto r parking; areas for the storage of materials and the siting of skips and working spaces. 5. No work shall be carried out on site (including site clearance and demolition) until a habitat management plan (HMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing b y the local planning authority. The content of the HMP shall include the following. a) Description and evaluation of features to be managed. b) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management. c) Aims and objectives of management which will (without limitation) include the provision of biodiversity net gain within the Site as shown within the Biodiversity Gain Plan. d) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives. e) Details of e cological buffer. f) Details of wildlife sensitive lighting should external lightening be proposed during operational phase of the development. g) Model specifications and locations of biodiversity enhancement features (a minimum of a bat box, bee hotel and bi rd box). h) Prescriptions for management actions. i) Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of being rolled forward over a thirty - year period). j) Details of the body or organization responsible for implementation of the plan. k) Ong oing monitoring and remedial measures. The HMP shall also include details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by which the long - term implementation of the plan will be secured by the developer with the management body(ies) responsible for its delivery. The plan shall be for no less than 30 years. The plan shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that conservation aims and objectives of the HMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed, and i mplemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme. The approved plan will be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 6. No work shall be carried out on site (includi ng site clearance and demolition) until a construction environmental management plan (CEMP: Biodiversity) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CEMP (Biodiversity) shall include the following. a) Risk assessment of potentially damaging construction activities. b) buffer. Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 c) Practical measures (both physical measures and sensitive working practices) to avoid or reduce impacts during construction (m ay be provided as a set of method statements). d) Measures to avoid and mitigate impacts to the SSSI (Site of Specific Scientific Interest), priority habitat, local wildlife site and recognised nature reserve. e) Demonstrate how best practice will be used to min imise dust to ensure no pollution from demolition or construction adversely affect the SSSI f) Details of wildlife sensitive lighting should external lightening be proposed during construction phase of the development. g) The location and timing of sensitive wor ks to avoid harm to biodiversity features. h) The times during construction when specialist ecologists need to be present on site to oversee works. i) Responsible persons and lines of communication. j) The role and responsibilities on site of an ecological clerk of works (ECoW) or similarly competent person. k) Use of protective fences, exclusion barriers and warning signs. The approved CEMP must be adhered to and implemented throughout the construction period strictly in accordance with the approve d details. 7. No construction shall take place above slab level until a Landscape and Ecological Management Plan (LEMP) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The LEMP shall include a woodland management plan and a bio diversity management and monitoring plan which shall follow the recommendations of the Ecological Impact Assessment (non - EIA) dated October 2023 , the landscape and ecological management summary prepared by SEED dated 15/09/2023 , and shall be prepared in accordance with the Habitat Management Plan approved pursuant to condition 5 of this permission. The LEMP shall demonstrate that the development shall be carried out in accordance with the details of the Landscape Masterplan dated May 2023 and the Landscape Developed Design LAC_003_Rev D and shall provide for native planting within the Ecological Buffer Zone indicated on 03 - 012 rev A. The LEMP shall also demonstrate that the development shall achieve a minimum net gain in biodiversity of 21% in accordance with the Biodiversity Net Gain report and metric dated September 2023. Thereafter the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details . 8. No development beyond site clearance shall take place until details of the proposed finished floor levels of all buildings and the finished ground levels of the site, in relation to existing site levels of surrounding property, has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved levels. 9. No development above slab level shall commence until a schedule of all the materials to be used in the construction of all external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approve d in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. Appeal Decision APP/J0405/W/23/3332713 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 10. N o development shall take place above slab level until full details of both hard and soft landscape works have been submitted to and ap proved in writing by the local planning authority. These details shall accord with the approved Landscape masterplan and include existing trees and/or hedgerows to be retained and/or removed accurately shown with root protection areas; schedules of plants noting species, plant supply sizes and proposed densities; written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with tree, plant and grass establishment; and the implementation programme. Development shall be carried out in accorda nce with the approved details. If within a period of ten years from the date of the planting of any tree or shrub, that tree or shrub, or any tree and shrub planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed, dies, becomes severely damaged or diseased, shall be replaced in the next planting season with trees and shrubs of equivalent size, species and quantity. All hard and soft landscape works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of the building or the completion of the development w hichever is the sooner or in accordance with the agreed programme of works . 11. No development shall take place above slab level until details of all boundary treatments including walls, fences, gates or other means of enclosure to be erected in or around the residential curtilage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter. 12. Prior to first occupation of the development hereby app roved secure bicycle storage facilities for the dwelling shall be provided and fully installed. The storage facilities shall be retained thereafter. 13. Prior to the occupation of the development hereby permitted the car parking and manoeuvring area shall be laid out and constructed in accordance with the approved drawings. The car parking area so provided shall be maintained and shall be used for no other purpose thereafter. 14. The development her e by approved shall be implemented in accordance with Appendix 7 of the bat activity survey (Elite Ecology, October 2023) identified within the agreed Ecological Impact Assessment (ecology by Design, October 2023) recommendation. Prior to occupation of the approved dwel ling a written statement to confirm the recommendations have be carried out will first be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority . 15. The dwelling hereby permitted shall be constructed and fitted out so as not to exceed the optio nal water consumption standard of 110 litres per person per day, as set out in Approved Document G of the Building Regulations 2010 (as amended). 16. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Or der 2015 (or any Order revoking or re - enacting that Order, with or without modification), no development covered by Classes A, B and E of Part 1 and Class A of Part 2 of Schedule 2 to that Order shall be carried out without the specific grant of planning p ermission from the Local Planning Authority.⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
For similar reasons condition on hard and soft landscaping is also required. A condition on boundary treatments is also necessary for the character and appearance of the area and the residential amenities of nearby occupiers. 42. A condition f or a BNG Report and associated Biodiversity Metric was suggested by the Council. However, given that both have been submitted as part of the appeal process and details for BNG are also required as part of the Landscape and Ecological Management Plan, this condition would not be necessary or reasonable. In the interests of safeguarding protected species, ancient woodland and habitat conditions are also required. 43. Details of water consumption are necessary in the interest of reducing water consumption. Also, a condition is necessary for the submission of a surface water drainage scheme in the interests of sustainable drainage. 44. In the interests of parking and sustainable travel options , cycle storage is required. For highway safety reasons, car parking and man oeuvring Conclusion 48. For the reason set out above, the appeal is allowed. A Hickey
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3331533 (North Yorkshire Council) — 2024-05-02
📍 North Yorkshire Council PINS reference: 3331533 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 26 March 2024 by S J Lee BA(Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02 May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 65 Wetherby Road, Knaresborough, North Yorkshire HG5 8LH The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted. The appeal is made by Gladman Retirement Living against the decision of North Yorkshire Council. The application Ref is ZC23/02201/DVCMAJ. The application sought planning permission for d evelopment of r etirement a partments with care (Use Class C2) including the demolition of existing buildings, formation of new vehicular access, parking, retaining structures, hardstanding, sewer diversion, er ection of substation, refuse and maintenance stores, with associated works to trees, landscaping, formation of communal facilities and amenity space without complying with a condition attached to planning permission Ref 21/02251/FULMAJ, dated 19 December 2 022 . The condition in dispute is No 2 which states that: The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the following drawings as mo dified by the further conditions of this permission: Location Plan 09999 - P2 - 201, Site Plan 09999 - P2 - 203 Rev B, Building Appearance 09999 - P2 - 232 Rev A, Building Elevations 09999 - P2 - 231 Rev A, Floor Plans 1 09999 - P2 - 221 Rev A, Floor Plans 2 09999 - P2 - 222 Rev A, Site Sections 09999 - P2 - 214 Rev A, Site Sections 09999 - P2 - 212 Rev A, Landscape Strategy 0 9999 - P2 - 241 Rev B, Materials Statement 09999 - P2 December 2021 Rev A . The reason given for the conditio n is: In order to ensure compliance with the approved drawings . Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for development of ret irement apartments with care (Use Class C2) including the demolition of existing buildings, formation of new vehicular access, parking, retaining structures, hardstanding, sewer diversion, erection of substation, refuse and maintenance stores, with associa ted works to trees, landscaping, formation of communal facilities and amenity space at 65 Wetherby Road, Knaresborough, North Yorkshire HG5 8LH in accordance with the application Ref ZC23/02201/DVCMAJ , without compliance with condition numbers 2, 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 16, 21, 22, 28 previously imposed on planning permission Ref 21/02251/FULMAJ dated 19 December 2022 and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule . Preliminary Matters and Background 2. Following the submission of the appeal, the Government published a revised National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). The policies relevant to this appeal did not change significant ly and thus it was not necessary to consult Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 the parties. Where necessary, I have had regard to the new Framework in my d ecision. 3. The approved permission sought to deliver 61 apartments. This application was subsequently amended under section 96(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to reduce the number of units to 55. From what I understand, this did not alter the ov erall design of the building, which remained no higher than 3 - storeys. 4. The proposal seeks to increase the number of apartments back to 61 through amendments to the approved drawings. Th e proposal would introduce a fourth storey on one part of the building. The Council refused permission for this on the basis that the changes to the approved scheme would be harmful to local distinctiveness and character . Main Issue s 5. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area. Reasons 6. The principle of development has already been established and construction is already underway. There is clearly more than a theoretical likelihood that the extant permission would be implemented in full if this appeal were dismissed. This is a very significant material consideration. The outcome of this appeal does not affect the extant permission . As such, it is not necessary for me to consider the principle of development or whether the approved element s remain acceptable . I have therefore limited my consideration to the difference in effect between the approved plans and the proposed revisions. 7. The revised plans would result in the creation of one 4 - storey element on the northern part of the building. The remainder of the building, including its broad design, height, footprint and materials used would not change. The scale and massing of the majority would therefore remain as approved . What is permitted already cons titutes a building that would be highly prominent in the street scene . This would particularly be the case when travelling along Wetherby Road. The addition of a fourth storey would increase this prominence to an extent , although it would make up only a relatively small part of the building overall . From some viewpoints, the change would not be perceived at all. However, even from where it would be more obvious on Wetherby Road, the additional storey would have a relatively small effect overall visual impact on the area. 8. The site is set at a substantially lower level than surrounding buildings . As such, although the fourth storey element would appear taller than 63 Wetherby Road, this would not be by a significant amount. There would also be a reasonable space between No 63 and the four - storey part of the building such that it would not appear as an unduly intensive or imposing structure. While f our storey buildings may not be prevalent in the area, the topography of the area means that th e development would not appear untoward, nor would it compete with buildings farther afield, such as the listed C hurch. This is some distance away and would not be affected by the development. I am therefore Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 satisfied that the alterations sought would comp lement what has been permitted and not stand out as an unduly incongruous of discordant feature. 9. Moreover, the plans do not suggest that the outward appearance of the building would change dramatically from what has been permitted . Part of the building would be taller , but the additional storey would match the detailing of the rest of the building . As such, it would complement what has already been considered acceptable. There would also be a high degree of articulation across the building , both in terms of height and footprint, which would break up the mass of the building , such that it would not appear as a monolithic structure . The variation in materials would also provide a degree of visual interest that would also help break up the structure While some trees may have already been removed, there are conditions requiring the implementation of a landscaping scheme. While this may not completely screen the development, particularly the upper storeys, it would still help to soften the over all impact of the building. 10. Overall, I do not consider the increase in height of part of the building would result in a materially more harmful impact than what has already been permitted. The additional storey would increase the prominence of the building to a degree, but this would be subsumed within the overall impact of what would be a large building in any event. Given what has been approved, t he additional storey would not appear out of place . The changes in levels would ensure the development would n ot appear excessively tall or intrusive . As the revised design s do not differ in terms of materials or general appearance, I also do not consider they would be harmful to local distinctiveness . 11. I am therefore content that the revisions to the plans would not result in unacceptable harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such, there would be no conflict wi th Harrogate and District Local Plan 2014 - 2035 (2022) Policy H P3 which seeks, am ongst other things, to ensure development protects, enhances or reinforces local characteristics. There would also be no conflict with paragraph 13 5 of the Framework, which includes provision for development to add to the overall quality of the area, be vi sually attractive, and sympathetic to local character. Other Matters 12. The site lies with in the setting of the Grade II listed Grimbald Bridge. It is also within the Knaresborough Conservation Area. The principle of development has already been established a nd t he effect of development considered acceptable. The incre ase in height of part of the building would have no additional impact on the setting of the bridge or the significance of the conservation area. The revised plans would therefore have a neutral e ffect on the heritage assets . This does not weigh against the proposal . 13. T he distance s between buildings would ensure that any increase in h eight would no t have an undue impact on the outlook or privacy of existing dwellings . While the development may be more prominent in views from nearby dwellings, including those on Fountains View, it would not have an overbearing impact on existing properties. There should also be no greater impact in terms of noise or disturbance. T he pr oposed development would not therefore have a materially greater effect on the living conditions of any occupants than the permitted scheme. There should also be no greater impact Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 on highways or highway safety, especially as 61 dwellings were initially per mitted. 14. Any issues relating to the works currently underway , including concerns about health and safety or removal of trees , are outside the scope of the appeal . use of this procedure or their motives for changing t he design have not had any bearing on my decision. Whether or not there is a need to change the design is also not a matter for me to consider. From the evidence before me, the previously refused application for a 4 - storey development differs to what is be fore me and thus does not weigh against this proposal, which I have considered on its own merits. I am also content that the of these matters alter my decision. Conditions 15. By allowing this appeal a new planning permission is created. The Planning Practice Guidance advises that, for clarity, decision notices for the grant of planning permission under S 73 should restate the conditions imposed on earlier permissions that contin ue to have effect, unless they have already been discharged. The Council and appellant have suggested new conditions that seek to reflect those which have already been discharged . It is permissible under S 73 to impose new conditions provide d they do not ma terially alter the development. It is therefore logical for these to replace discharged conditions where they meet the relevant tests. 16. Where I have no information about the status of other conditions imposed on the original planning permission, I shall im pose all those that I consider remain relevant. In the event these have since been discharged, that will be a matter which can be addressed by the parties. 17. I have imposed a condition stipulating the timescales for which development must start. I have amen ded the suggested condition such that it reflects the date of the original permission. A decision made under S73 cannot extend the time period within which a development must start (1) . For certainty, I have imposed a condition establishing the approved pl ans . Here I have used the list provided by the Council (2) . In the interests of highway safety and accessibility , I have re imposed conditions requiring the delivery of the site access , off - site mitigation measures and footpath improvements ( 3,4,5,6) . I have also included new conditions in these respects which reflect the matters already discharged. 18. In the interests of the living conditions of nearby residents and safety, I have imposed a condition requiring adhere nce to the previously agreed Construction Method and Management Statement (7) . For the same reason, I have re imposed a condition requiring the approval and implementation of a Parking Management Strategy (31). In the interests of tree protection, I have re imposed conditions relating to tree protection (8,9). In the interests of flooding , drainage and water management , I have reimposed the conditions relating to f inished floor levels, flood mitigation, avoiding the existing sewer , foul and surface water mit igation measures , the approved drainage strategy and the Flood Evacuation and Management Plan (10 , 11, 12, 13 , 22 , 29 , 30 ) . 19. To ensure issues relating to ground conditions and potential mitigation are addressed I have imposed conditions requiring adherence to the previously Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 agreed Geo - Environmental Report and Remediation Strategy (14, 15, 16). I have reimposed the condition relating to the completion of any measures in the Remediation Strategy (17). 20. In the interests of the living conditions of nearby residents I have reimposed the conditions relating to odour control (18). The appellant has indicated that a discharge of condition application had been made at the time of the appeal. However, I have had no confirmation of the outcome of this and so the original condition is imposed. For the same reasons, I have reimposed the conditions relating to light and noise ( 19, 20). 21. In the interests of biodiversity, I have imposed a condition ensuring adherence t o the previously agreed Construction Environmental Management Plan (21). In the interests of character, appearance and biod iversity, I have reimposed the conditions relating to the approval and implementation of a landscaping scheme (23 , 24 ). Again, I have no information as to whether a pending discharge of condition application has been approved and thus have used the original wording for condition 23 . 22. conditions relating to electric vehi cle charging points and solar panels (25, 26). The latter condition reflects changes previously approved by the Council as a non - material amendment. In the interests of character and appearance, I have reimposed conditions relating to window design (27). F or the same reason, I have imposed a condition requiring adherence to previously agreed details relating to materials (28). 23. Where the suggested conditions from the Council and appellant differ , I have suggested wording . This is bec ause I do not have any detailed information as to what has been approved or not as part of any discharge of condition. I am content, however, that all of the conditions are necessary and meet the relevant tests. Conclusion 24. The proposal accords with the development plan as a whole and thus, f or the reasons given above , I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will gra nt a new planning permission without the disputed condition but substituting others and restating those undisputed conditions that are still subsisting and capable of taking effect. S J Lee INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 Schedule of Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 19 December 2025 . 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out strictly in accordance with the following drawings: Location Plan 09999 - P2 - 201 Site Plan 09999 - P2 - 203 Rev B Building Elev ations 09999 - P3 - 331 Floor Plans 1 09999 - P3 - 321 Floor Plans 2 09999 - P3 - 322 Site Sections 09999 - P2 - 214 Rev A Site Sections 09999 - P3 - 312 Landscape Strategy 09999 - P2 - 241 Rev B 3) The development must not be brought into use until the access to the site has been set out and constructed in accordance with the Specification for Housing and Industrial Estate Roads and Private Street Works" published by the local h ighway a uthority and the following requirements unless otherwise approved in writing by the local Highway Authority. The crossing of the highway verge and footway must be constructed in accordance with the approved details to Standard Detail number E7, be a minimum of 5.5 metr es in width, and provide the footway link to the existing footpath as shown on the approved drawing P18017 - 001E. i Any gates or barriers must be erected a minimum distance of 4.8 metres back from the carriageway of the existing highway and must not be able to swing over the existing or proposed highway. ii Provision to prevent surface water from the site/plot discharging onto the existing or proposed highway must be constructed in accordance with the approved details shown on drawing Standard Detail E7 and ma intained thereafter to prevent such discharges. iii The final surfacing of any private access within 6 metres of the public highway must not contain any loose material that is capable of being drawn on to the existing or proposed public highway. iv The existing footway crossing point on Wetherby Road must be upgraded to include tactile crossing guidance, and where the new proposed footpath link joins the existing footpath network, the footway width must be widened to 2 metres. v Measures to enable vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward gear. All works must accord with the approved details. 4) There must be no access or egress by any vehicles between the highway and the application site until splays are provided giving cle ar visibility of 2.4 metres x 56 metres measured along both channel lines of Wetherby Road from a point measured down the centre line of the access road. Once created, these visibility splays must be maintained clear of any obstruction and retained for the ir intended purpose at all times. Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 5) No part of the development must be brought into use until the vehicle access, parking, manoeuvring and turning areas have been constructed in accordance with the following plans approved under application 23/00197/DISCON unless alternative details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority : Vehicular, Cycle and Pedestrian Access and Parking 09999 - XX - C - PL - 610 - 003 Rev P02; Highways S278 New Entrance GA 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 002 Rev P02; S wept Path Refuse Vehicle 09999 - XX - C - PL - 610 - 004 Rev P01; Swept Path Delivery Vehicle 09999 - XX - C - PL - 610 - 005 Rev P03; Swept Path Fire Tender 09999 - XX - C - PL - 610 - 007 Rev P01. Once created these areas must be maintained clear of any obstruction and retained fo r their intended purpose at all times. 6) The following schemes of off - site highway mitigation measures must be completed as indicated below: 1. Uncontrolled crossing northwest of proposed access. Uncontrolled crossing improvements to include: Widening of d ropped kerbs; Removal of existing tactile paving to the back of footway; Tactile paving to be provided for extent of dropped kerbs; Northern footway to be widened and cleared of debris; Existing 'Reduce Speed now' signage to be relocated outside of proposed footway; Existing road markings to be replenished; Additional 'SLOW' road markings to be provided on approach to existing road hump. 2. Vegetation/ debris within Wetherby Road southe rn footway: Clear vegetation/debris and tidy up the general appearance of the footpath. 3. Substandard tactile paving, poor road surface and worn road markings at Wetherby Road/ Abbey Road junction. Junction improvements to include: Wider dropped kerbs either side of junction; Tactile paving to be provided for extent of dropped kerbs and laid to a depth of 1200mm - Road to be resurfaced where necessary; Road markings to be replenished. 4. Substandard crossing facilities at turning head east of Grimbald Bridge. Crossing facilities to include: Dropped kerbs on either side of the turning head to be located along the desire line; Tactile paving to be provided for extent of dropped kerbs and laid to a depth of 1200mm; Amendments to th e footway on the eastern side of the crossing to improve pedestrian desire line to either northern/ southern KR1. 5. Misleading tactile/ substandard tactile paving arrangements at various uncontrolled crossing points east of Grimbald Bridge. Existing tact ile paving layout to be removed as this is misleading for the visually impaired, and replaced with suitable tactile paving/corduroy hazard Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 warning surface arrangements appropriate for shared cycle track/footway crossings. 6. Construction of the approved f ootpath link and associated infrastructure improvements as shown on plan P21094 - 006A dated 3 May 2022. The above highway improvement works must be carried out using an approved NYCC contractor and be completed prior to the proposed development's first occ upation. An independent Stage 2 Road Safety Audit must be carried out in accordance with GG119. Road Safety Audits or any superseding regulations must be included in the submission and the design proposals must be amended in accordance with the recommenda tions of the submitted Safety Audit prior to the commencement of works on site. A programme for the delivery of that scheme and its interaction with delivery of the other identified schemes must be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority prior to construction works commencing on site. Each item of the off - site highway works must be completed in accordance with the following engineering details and programme approved under application 23/00589/DISCON unless alternative details have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority : H ighways 278 Extent of Works - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 001 Rev P02 Highways 278 Adoption Plan - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 000 Rev P01 Highways 278 New Entrance GA - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 002 Rev P03 Highways 278 Existing Services - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 003 Rev P07 Highways 278 Crossing Upgrades Sheet 1 of 2 - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 004 Rev P02 Highways 278 Crossing Upgrades Sheet 2 of 2 - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 005 Rev P02 Highways 278 Road Markings, Signs & Sight Lines - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 006 Rev P02 Highways 278 Construction Deta ils - 09999 - XX - C - PL - 620 - 010 Rev P02 Services Diversions Report, Adlington, January 2023 Stage 2 Road Safety Audit - 610/2022/155/01 Rev 1, 12 November 2022 Stage 2 Road Safety Audit Designers Response, Adlington, December 2022. 7) Unless alternative detai ls have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority construction of the permitted development must be undertaken in strict accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan Construction Method and Management St atement by Gladman Homes LLP, March 2023. Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 8) Prior to any operations commencing on the site in connection with the development hereby approved (including any demolition work, soil moving, bringing materials onto site, temporary access construction and/or wid ening or any operations involving the use of motorised vehicles or construction machinery), the developer shall implement the agreed specification for root protection area (RPA) and detail (as per FPCR Arboricultural Assessment dated April 2021) fencing in line with the requirements of British Standard BS 5837: 2012 Trees in Relation to Construction - Recommendations, or any subsequent amendments to that document, around the trees or shrubs or planting to be retained, as indicated on the approved plan and f or the entire area as specified in accordance with BS 5837:2012. The developer shall maintain such fences until all development the subject of this permission is completed. 9) The applicant is to retain, throughout the development process, including the prop osed tree planting (as per the approved plans), the arboricultural consultant who is to forward a monthly progress report to the LPA. The progress report is required to demonstrate that the trees are being protected in accordance with the submitted detail, and any approved Method Statement or other documentation, during the course of the development. The retention of the arboricultural consultant will aid in the development process where it applies to trees in all forms eg no dig road, Root Protection Area enforcement and tree planting. 10) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted flood risk assessment (ref SHF.1255.004.HY.R.002.G dated December 2021) and the following mitigation measures it details within section 5: Finished floor levels shall be set no lower than 36.55metres above Ordnance Datum (AOD); There is to be no built development within flood zone 3b and no raising of ground levels within flood zone 3. All excess spoil is to be removed from the floodplain and disposed of appropriately; The development shall be constructed with a floodable basement, the sole purpose of which shall be for the storage of flood flows. The basement is to be built in accordance with drawing Nos 09999 - P2 - 215 & 09999 - P2 - 232, should be designed an d built to drain by gravity, and, is to have a soffit of 35.85mAOD. The basement is also to have a floodable volume of at least 600m3. The basement is to be managed and maintained as per Table 5.4 of document SHF.1255.004.HY.R.005.B so that the full flood storage volume remains available for the lifetime of the development. A detailed management and maintenance plan should be agreed with the LPA prior to occupation of the development. These mitigation measures shall be fully implemented prior to occupation and subsequently in accordance with the scheme's timing/ phasing arrangements. The measures detailed above shall be retained and maintained thereafter throughout the lifetime of the development. 11) No building or other obstruction including landsca pe features shall be located over or within: a) 3.5 (three point five) metres either side of the centre line of the public 675 mm diameter sewer i.e. a protected strip width of 7 (seven) metres, that crosses the site; and b) 3 (three) metres either side of the centre line of the public 225 mm diameter sewer i.e. a Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 10 protected strip width of 6 (six) metres, that crosses the site. If the required stand - off distance is to be achieved via diversion or closure of the sewer, the developer shall submit evidence to t he local planning authority that the diversion or closure has been agreed with the relevant statutory undertaker and that prior to construction in the affected area, the approved works have been undertaken . 12) The site shall be developed with separate systems of drainage for foul and surface water on and off site. The separate systems should extend to the points of discharge to be agreed. 13) There shall be no piped discharge of surface water from the development p rior to the completion of surface water drainage works, details of which will have been submitted to and approved by the local planning authority . If discharge to public sewer is proposed, the information shall include, but not be exclusive to: i) Evidenc e that other means of surface water drainage have been properly considered and why they have been discounted; and ii) The means of discharging to the public sewer network at a rate to be agreed by the local planning authority in consultation with the stat utory sewerage undertaker. 14) Unless alternative details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved Phase II Geo - Environmen tal Report SHF.1255.012.GE.R.001.A dated November 2022 by Enzygo Geo Environmental. 15) Unless alternative details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority site remediation shall take place in strict accordance with the land contamination remediation strategy contained in the approved Phase II Geo - Environmental Report SHF.1255.012.GE.R.001.A dated November 2022 by Enzygo Geo Environmental. 16) Land contamination remediation of the site shall be carried out and completed in accordance with the Remediation Strategy approved pursuant to condition 15. In the event that remediation is unable to proceed in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy or contamination not previously considered or identified in either the P reliminary Risk Assessment or the Phase II Intrusive Site Investigation Report is identified or encountered on site, all groundworks in the affected area (save for site investigation works) shall cease immediately and the local planning authority shall be notified in writing within 2 working days. Works shall not recommence until proposed revisions to the Remediation Strategy have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . Remediation of the site shall thereafter be carried o ut in accordance with the approved revised Remediation Strategy. 17) Following completion of any measures identified in the approved Remediation Strategy or any approved revised Remediation Strategy a land contamination Verification Report shall be submitted to the local planning authority . No part of the site shall be brought into use until such time as the remediation measures have been completed for that part of Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 11 the site in accordance with the approved Remediation Strategy or the approved revised Remediatio n Strategy and a Verification Report in respect of those remediation measures has been approved in writing by the local planning authority . Where verification has been submitted and approved in stages for different areas of the whole site, a Final Verifica tion Summary Report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . 18) Prior to the commencement of the external construction of the walls of the development hereby approved a scheme containing full details of arrangements for internal air extraction, odour control, and discharge to atmosphere from commercial cooking operations, including any external ducting and flues, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The works detailed in the appro ved scheme shall be installed in their entirety before the use hereby permitted is commenced. The equipment shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and operated at all times when cooking is being carried out unless otherwise agreed beforehand in writing with the local planning authority . 19) Prior to the first occupation of the development a scheme for the minimisation of the effect of light glare on nearby properties shall be submitted to the local planning authority for written approval. The submitted scheme shall include an isolux diagram showing the predicted luminance in the vertical plane (in lux) at critical locations on the boundary of the site and at adjacent properties. The approved works shall be completed be fore any lighting equipment to which this approval relates to is operated and shall be maintained during such operation for the life of the development. 20) Before the development is first brought into use, all works which form part of the sound attenuation s cheme as specified in the Noise Report, dated April 2021, reference GM10886, Version 004 V1 Final and produced by Wardell Armstrong : a) Shall be completed; and b) Written evidence to demonstrate that the specified noise levels (including the noise design criteria for all mechanical plant and extraction systems) have been achieved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . If it cannot be demonstrated that the noise levels specified in the aforementioned Noise Report hav e been achieved, then a further scheme shall be submitted for the written approval of the local planning authority incorporating further measures to a chieve those noise levels. All works comprised within those further measures shall be completed and writte n evidence to demonstrate that the aforementioned noise levels have been achieved shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is first brought into use. 21) Unless alternative details have first been sub mitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority the development hereby permitted must be carried out in strict accordance with the approved Construction Ecological Management Plan Rev A by FPCR dated 23.02.23 and approved under applicatio n 23/00089/DISCON. All subsequent works on site must be undertaken in accordance with the approved CEMP, which must be Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 12 incorporated as a biodiversity chapter of the wider site Construction Environmental Management Plan. Species - specific enhancements such a s the provision of faunal boxes must be in place prior to the first occupation of the new building. A copy of the Construction Ecological Management Plan must be available on site and accessible to site operatives at all times during construction. 22) Unless alternative details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority the development hereby permitted must be carried out in strict accordance with the approved Drainage Strategy and Calculations by Adlington Retirement Living dated December 2022 and the Sustainable Drainage Management and Maintenance Plan by Adlington Ret irement Living dated December 2022. The flowrate from the site shall be restricted to a maximum flowrate of 3.5 litres per second to public sewer for up to the 1 in 100 year event. A 30% allowance shall be included for climate change effects for the lifeti me of the development. Storage shall be provided to accommodate the minimum 1 in 100 year plus climate change critical storm event. The scheme shall include a detailed maintenance and management regime for the storage facility. No part of the development s hall be brought into use until the development flow restriction works comprising the approved scheme has been completed. The approved maintenance and management scheme shall be implemented throughout the lifetime of the development. 23) A detailed scheme for landscaping, including the planting of trees (in broad accordance with the submitted Tree Mitigation Plan drawing no. 8603 - L - 01 Rev G & 8603 - L - 02 Rev G dated 8 May 2021) and or shrubs and the use of surface materials shall be submitted to the local plannin g authority prior to the commencement of any external construction of the walls of the development hereby approved. The scheme shall specify materials, species, tree and plant sizes, number and planting densities and the timing of the implementation of the scheme, including any earthworks required. The landscape scheme is to be implemented the planting season (October to March) after completion of the permitted development . 24) In the event of failure of any trees or shrubs, planted in accordance with any scheme approved by the local planning authority , to survive for a period of five years from the date of completion of implementation of that scheme, such trees or shrubs shall b e replaced by the developer with such live specimens of such species in such number as may be approved by the local planning authority . 25) Unless alternative details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority the dev elopment hereby permitted must be carried out in strict accordance with the electric vehicle infrastructure strategy and implementation plan as set out in the Electric Vehicle Charge Points Document v2 and the External Works Plan 00000 - XX - C - PL - 610 - 000 Rev P07 approved under application 23/00090/DISCON. The development shall be carried out as approved with charging points installed prior to occupation. 26) Prior to occupation of the development hereby approved, a scheme for the installation of the solar panels shall be submitted in writing for the Appeal Decision APP/U2750/W/23/3331533 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 13 written approval of the local planning authority . The scheme shall include: (a) Details of design and specification of the solar panels; (b) Timing of installation; and (c) Submission of MCS Certificates upon completio n. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. 27) The windows on the permitted development, unless alterative details are submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority , shall have 75mm window re veals. 28) Unless alternative details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority the development shall be constructed in strict accordance with the materials approved under application ZC23/01543/DISCON. 29) Prior to fir st occupation of the development a Flood Evacuation and Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. 30) Notwithstanding det ails as approved by Condition 2, should any further alterations be considered necessary to levels on site, full details of existing and proposed site levels, finished floor levels and any changes to the surrounding landform must be submitted in writing to the local planning authority and approved prior to any such changes taking place. 31) Prior to first occupation of the development a Parking Management Strategy shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority . The development sha ll be carried out in strict accordance with the approved details. Schedule ends.⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
Conclusion 24. The proposal accords with the development plan as a whole and thus, f or the reasons given above , I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will gra nt a new planning permission without the disputed condition but substituting others and restating those undisputed conditions that are still subsisting and capable of taking effect. S J Lee
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3328363 (Cheshire East) — 2024-05-02
📍 Cheshire East PINS reference: 3328363 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 18 April 2024 by Hannah Ellison BSc (Hons) MSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 nd M ay 20 24 Appeal Ref: APP/R0660/W/23/3328363 Land to the North West of Overdale, Oak Road, Mottram St Andrew SK10 4RA The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr David Fletcher against the decision of Chesh ire East Council. The application Ref is 22/4431M. The development proposed is the c onstruction of a detached single dwellinghouse with garden and parking. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the c onstruction of a detached single dwellinghouse with garden and parking at Land to the North West of Overdale, Oak Road, Mottram St Andrew SK10 4RA in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/4431M, s ubject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matter s 2. I have taken the site address above from the planning decision notice as this is the most complete version provided. 3. Since the appeal was lodged, a revised version of the National Plann ing Policy Framework (the Framework) was published (December 2023). This does not materially change the planning policy context in respect of the main issue. Main Issue 4. The main issue is whether the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Reasons 5. Th is appeal concerns a plot of land front ing Oak Road. It is located within the settlement of Mottram St Andrew and is surrounded by residential properties. The appeal site falls within the Green Belt and, as Mottram St Andrew does not have a defined settlement boundary, is within the open countryside for planning policy purposes. 6. Policy PG3 of the Cheshire East Local Plan Strategy 2010 - 2030 ( July 2017 ) (the CELPS) sets out that the construction of new buildings is inappropriate in the G reen Belt, with one exception to this being limited infilling in villages. This is consistent with the exception to inappropriate development in the Green Belt at paragraph 154 e) of the Framework . Appeal Decision APP/R0660 /W/23/3328363 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 7. Similarly, C ELPS Policy PG6 restricts development to that which is essential for the uses appropriate to the rural area, with an exception being where there is the opportunity for limited infilling in villages and the infill of a small gap with one or two dwellings in an otherwise built - up frontage elsewhere. 8. The re is no dispute between the main parties that the appeal proposal would be limited in respect of the scale of the development and that the site is position ed between existing dwellings thus would reflect infill development . I have no reason to find otherw ise. 9. Policy PG10 of the Cheshire East Site Allocations and Development Policies Document (December 2022) (the SADPD) spatially defines certain settlements in the borough as infill villages . The appeal site does not fall within one of the identified settlements . In this circumstance, criterion 4 states that development proposals will not be considered to be limited infilling in villages when applying CELPS policies PG3 and PG6. As such, the p roposal conflicts with this policy and is contrary to the approach to limited infilling in villages as set out in the development plan. 10. C ase law 1 has however established that the boundary of a defined village m ay not be determinative for this purpose, rather it is a matter of planning judgement for the decision - maker having regard to the facts on the ground as well as any relevant policies . 11. Neither the development plan nor the Framework provide a definition of a village. I observed that Mottram St Andrew contains a church, primary school and village hall. There are no shops or other services. Nevertheless, the settlement is built - up with a considerable number of residential properties . The collection of buildings is dispersed over a large area. On passing through, it has a distinctive village character assisted largely by the many examples of traditional built form, narrow highways and mature landscaping. 12. O n the approach to the appeal site from the south there is a clear distinction between the countryside and the beginning of the built form in the settlement. The appeal site is a distinctive gap located within the built - up linear arrangement of built form along Oak Road leading towards the junction with P riest Lane. It is evidently within the village. 13. Based on my observations, the appeal site has a very clear visual and physical relationship with the village . I therefore find that the appeal site would appear as part of the village for the purposes of the - the - 14. Consequently , the proposal would accord with the relevant provisions of Polic ies PG3 and PG6 of the CELPS , along with the exception at paragraph 154 e) of the Framework and thus would not be inapprop riate development in the Green Belt . 15. W hilst the appeal site would not be within an infill village as defined by Policy PG10 and thus the proposal would conflict with the approach set out i n this policy, given my interpretation of the settlement on the ground I afford limited weight to this conflict. 1 Julian Wood v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, Gravesham Borough Council [2015] EWHC Civ 195 Appeal Decision APP/R0660 /W/23/3328363 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 16. Given my findings there is n o need to go on to consider the effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt or consider w hether v ery spe cial circumstances exist . Other Matter 17. I note and share t boundary fence as shown on the submitted plans . Nevertheless, t his matter can be effectively dealt with by way of appropriately worded condition s . Conditi ons 18. The Council provided a list of suggested conditions to be attached should the appeal be allowed. Having regard to the six tests set out in the Framework I have altered the wording of some of the suggested conditions where required , without affecting th eir overall intention . 19. I have attached the standard time limit and plans list conditions in the interest of certainty. In the interests of the rural character of the area I have amended the suggested materials condition so as to require details of the brickwork to be submitted , as this is not specified on the approved plans . 20. In the interests of biodiversity and the charact er and appearance o f the area , I have attached conditions relating to nesting birds and bats, the removal of vegetation and existing and proposed landscaping . Conclusion 21. The proposal accords with the development plan as a whole , thus the appeal should be a llowed. H Ellison INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/R0660 /W/23/3328363 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 Schedule of Conditions 1. The development hereby permitted shall be g in not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 293.01 Revision A, 293.02 Revision C and 293.03 Revision D ( except in respect of the s outheast boundary fence ). 3. Prior to its installation, details of the brickwork shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Lo cal Planning Authority . The development shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 4. No above ground development shall commence until a strategy for the incorporation of features to enhance the biodiversity value of the develop ment hereby permitted shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted strategy should include proposals for the provision of features for nesting birds and roosting bats (any external lighting should avoid direc t light spill upon bat roost features), brash/deadwood piles and native species planting. The approved details shall thereafter be implemented in full prior to first occupation of the development and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved de tails . 5. Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted there shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the L ocal P lanning A uthority a scheme of landscaping. The scheme shall include details of hard landscaping, boundary treatments, planting plans, written specifications (including cultivation and other operations associated with tree, shrub, hedge or grass establishment), schedules of plants noting species, plant sizes, the proposed numbers and densities , an impl ementation programme and indications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land to be retained and set out measures for their protection throughout the course of development. 6. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of lands caping shall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the dwelling hereby permitted or the completion of the development , whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. 7. No removal of any vegetation shall take place between 1st March and 31st August in any year, unless a detailed survey has been carried out to check for nesting birds. Where nests are found in any hedgerow, tree or scrub or other habitat to be removed, a 4m exclusion zone shall be left around the nest until breeding is complete. Comple tion of nesting shall be confirmed by a suitably qualified person and a report submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before any further works within the exclusion zone take place. End of Schedule⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
Given my findings there is n o need to go on to consider the effect of the proposed development on the openness of the Green Belt or consider w hether v ery spe cial circumstances exist . Other Matter 17. I note and share t boundary fence as shown on the submitted plans . Nevertheless, t his matter can be effectively dealt with by way of appropriately worded condition s . Conditi ons 18. The Council provided a list of suggested conditions to be attached should the appeal be allowed. Having regard to the six tests set out in the Framework I have altered the wording of some of the suggested conditions where required , without affecting th eir overall intention . 19. I have attached the standard time limit and plans list conditions in the interest of certainty. In the interests of the rural character of the area I have amended the suggested materials condition so as to require details of the brickwork to be submitted , as this is not specified on the approved plans . 20. In the interests of biodiversity and the charact er and appearance o f the area , I have attached Conclusion 21. The proposal accords with the development plan as a whole , thus the appeal should be a llowed. H Ellis…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3323328 (Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council) — 2024-05-02
📍 Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council PINS reference: 3323328 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 27 February 2024 by Rebecca McAndrew, BA Hons, MSc, PG Dip Urban Design, MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 02.05.2024 Appeal Ref: APP/H1705/W/23/3323328 West View Farm, Baughurst Road, Baughurst RG26 5LL The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr and Mrs Giles against the decision of Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council. The application Ref 21/03332/FUL, dated 22 October 2021, was refused by notice dated 17 April 2023. The development proposed is the erection of 3 no. detached dwellings with garages, parking and associate d landscaping following the demolition of existing stables/barn. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the erection of 3 no. detached dwellings with garages, parking and associated landscaping following the demolition of existing stables/barn at West View Farm, Baughurst Road, Baughurst RG26 5LL in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 21/03332/FUL, dated 22 October 2021, subject to the attached schedule of conditions. Preliminary Matters 2. The description of development for the proposals changed within the course of the planning application as the appellants amended the scheme. I have therefore taken the description of development in the banner above from the 3. The Government published on 19 December 2023 a revised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework). Whilst I have had regard to the revised national policy as a material consideration, planning decisions must still be made in accordance w ith the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this instance, the issues most relevant to the appeal remain unaffected by the revisions to the Framework. I am therefore satisfied that there is no requirement to seek further submissions on the revised Framework, and that no party would be disadvantaged by such a course of action. Main Issue 4. The main issue is the effect on the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/23/3323328 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Reasons 5. The site is located within the countryside, as defined by the Basingstoke and Deane Local Plan 2011 - 2029 (2016) (LP). It includes a variety of equestrian structures and facilities, associated with the adjacent West View Farm. A number of residential properties sit between the appeal site and Baug hurst Road. 6. The appeal scheme proposes large, detached houses within sizeable plots, which reflect s the general character of Baughurst Road. This layout would retain a good level of space around the homes. As such, the dwellings would comfortably sit with in the site and would not appear cramped or represent overdevelopment. 7. Whilst Baughurst Road is predominantly a ribbon settlement, I noted on my site visit that there are parts where there is a less linear pattern of development. This includes West View F arm itself. The proposed development would in - fill an area between neighbouring Manor Farm House and land where a new dwelling has recently been allowed on appeal, although this consent has not yet been implemented (20/00578/FUL). As such , locating the p roposed linear development to the rear of existing properties would not be at odds with the overall existing development pattern. 8. I recognise that the scheme would introduce dwellings and associated residential paraphernalia onto land beyond the existing r esidential area of Baughurst Road. However, this is a brownfield site where there are already built structures. Also, the proposed curtilages would not extend beyond the footprint of the existing stables. Consequently, the countryside adjoining the site would remain untouched and open. In addition, the proposed boundary planting would help soften the proposed development within the wider rural landscape. 9. Taking all the above into account, the proposals would not have a significant urbanising impact and would not unacceptably harm the rural character and appearance of the wider area. 10. The proposal therefore meets the requirements of the Framework, Policies SS6, EM1 and EM10 of the LP, the Design and Sustainability Supplementary Planning Document (2018) and the Landscape, Biodiversity and Trees Supplementary Planning Document (2018). Taken together these require residential development on brownfield sites in the open countryside to be high quality, not visually intrusive within the landscape and to positive ly contribute to the sense of place and local distinctiveness. Other Matters 11. I have considered several issues raised by local residents. I note comments regarding highway safety, traffic generation from the proposed development, the effect of light pollution on wildlife, loss of privacy to existing properties, lack of local facilities to support additiona l residents and the fact that the site is within an Emergency Planning Zone. However, these matters are not contested by the Council and therefore, in my judgement, none of this is of sufficient weight to alter the balance of considerations in this appeal . Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/23/3323328 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 Conditions 12. considered these in light of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and the tests set out in the Framework. For clarity and to ensure compliance with the tests, I have amen ded some of the suggested wording. 13. In addition to the standard time limit condition (condition No 1), I have imposed a condition requiring the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans as this provides certainty (2). 14. I have includ ed a condition requiring details of external materials to be approved by the Council, prior to commencement. This is to ensure the new dwellings properly reflect the character and appearance of the area (3). For the same reason, I have attached a conditio n requiring details of hard and soft landscaping (4). 15. To safeguard the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers during construction of the development, construction hours and hours for deliveries have been limited (5 and 6). For the same reasons, a Construction Method Statement must be submitted to and be approved by the Council prior to commencement (7). 16. I have attached a condition regarding water efficiency to ensure that the development delivers a level of sustainable water use (8). 17. A c ondition requiring bin stores to be provided is necessary to ensure convenience of arrangements for refuse and recycling collection and to ensure that no obstruction is caused on the adjoining highway (9). 18. Secure cycle storage is required to encourage acti ve travel (10). In the interests of highway safety, a condition is imposed to ensure appropriate carparking and turning facilities are provided at the site (11). 19. included condition s requiring the risks posed by contamination to be properly addressed as part of the development (12 - 14). 20. I have restricted certain permitted development rights relating to ancillary development within the curtilage of the new dwellings. This will mean suf ficient controls are in place to help ensure that the proposal continues to respect the rural character and appearance of the area (15). 21. provide a net gain for biodiversity, I have attached a condition requiring a Biodiversity Enhancement and Management Plan (16). 22. The Council originally proposed a condition to secure accessible housing standards in one of the three dwellings. It indicates that this is to comply with LP Policy CN3. This requirement would significantly exceed the policy requirement for 15% accessible and adaptable homes be secured within developments. In addition, the reasoned justification recognises that this requirement may not be appropriate for a development of 3 or less units. In Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/23/3323328 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 view of this, such a condition would not be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. Given that it would not pass the tests for conditions set out in paragraph 57 of the Framework, I have not imposed it. Conclu sion 23. I conclude that the proposal would accord with the development plan and there are no material considerations that would indicate that the appeal should be dismissed. Therefore, for the reasons given, the appeal is allowed. INSPECTOR Conditions Schedule 1. The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: BB_01 Rev A - Location and Block Plan, BB_02 Rev A - Plot 1 Plans and Elevations, BB_03 Rev A - Plot 2 Plans and Elevations, BB_04 Rev A - Plot 3 Plans and Elevations 3. No development above damp proof course shall commence until details / samples of the materials to be used in the construc tion of the external surfaces of the external walls and roofs of the dwellings hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details samples . 4. Notwithstanding the approved plans, no development above damp proof course shall commence until there shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority a scheme for soft and hard landscaping. The scheme shall include in dications of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, identify those to be retained and set out measures for their protection throughout the course of development. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the approved details of landscaping s hall be carried out in the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the devel opment die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species. 5. Works relating to construction, including demolition works or other preparatory works, shall take place o nly between 07:30 and 18:00 on Monday to Friday, 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays. 6. Deliveries or collections of construction materials or plant and machinery shall be taken at or des patched from the site only between 07:30 to 18:00 Monday to Friday , 08:00 and 13:00 on Saturdays and shall not take place at any time on Sundays or on Bank or Public Holidays. Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/23/3323328 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 7. No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a Cons truction Method Statement (CMS) has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The CMS shall include details of: a) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction; and, b) A traffic management plan, t o include a strategy for traffic management along the public right of way, which shall involve the erection of signs warning drivers of the presence of pedestrians and the need to give way, the implementation of a low - speed limit, and the use of banksmen. The approved CMS shall be adhered to throughout the construction period for the development. 8. Prior to the first occupation of the development, a Construction Statement detailing how the new homes shall meet a water efficiency standard of 110 litres or les s per person per day has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, unless a demonstration shows that this requirement for sustainable water use cannot be achieved on technical or viability grounds. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 9. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until refuse and recycling storage has been provided in connection with the respective dwelling, in accordance with details shown on drawing no. BB_01 Rev A . The refuse and recycling storage shall be maintaine d in perpetuity. 10. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until secure cycle storage facilities have been provided to serve the respective dwelling in accordance with details with details shown on drawing no. BB_01 Rev A . The cycle storage facilitie s shall be maintained in perpetuity. 11. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until the provision for the parking and turning of vehicles, including garages, to serve that dwelling have been made in accordance Drawing no. BB_01 Rev A. Thereafter, the y shall be maintained for such purpose in perpetuity. 12. No works pursuant to this permission shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority: (a) a desk top study carried out by a competent person doc umenting all the previous and existing land uses of the site and adjacent land in accordance with national guidance; (b) if deemed necessary by the Local Planning Authority, a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site and inc orporating chemical and gas analysis identified as being appropriate by the desk study; (c) if deemed necessary by the Local Planning Authority, a detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be undertaken to avoid risk from contaminants/or gases wh en the site is developed. The scheme must include a timetable of works and site management procedures and the nomination of a competent person to oversee the implementation of the works, together with details of future monitoring and maintenance. The sche me must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and if necessary, proposals for future maintenance and monitoring. Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/23/3323328 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 If during any works contamination is encountered which has not be en previously identified, it should be reported immediately to the Local Planning Authority. The additional contamination shall be fully assessed and an appropriate remediation scheme, agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority, together with a ti metable for implementation. The approved remediation scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details. 13. No dwelling hereby permitted shall be occupied until a verification report by a competent person (as approved under condition 12 (c)) showing that any remediation required and approved under condition 12 (c) has been fully implemented in accordance with the approved details has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Unless otherwise specified, the verification rep ort shall include: (a) as - built drawings of the implemented scheme; (b) photographs of the remediation works in progress; and (c) certificates demonstrating that imported materials and or any materials left in situ on the site are free of contamination. Th e development shall thereafter be maintained in accordance with the details of future monitoring and maintenance approved under condition 7(c). 14. The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until there has been submitted to and approved by the Lo cal Planning Authority certificates demonstrating that a) sufficient sampling of imported material has taken place and b) the imported material is free from unacceptable levels of contamination. Sampling should take place in situ at a frequency of 1 per 10 0m3. 15. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re - enacting that Order with or without modification), no building, structure or other alteratio n permitted by Classes A to F of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Order shall be erected on the application site without the prior written permission of the Local Planning Authority. 16. Prior to the commencement of development, a Biodiversity Enhancement & Managem ent Plan (BEMP) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall deliver a minimum of 0.29 Habitat Units and 0.66 Hedgerow Units as stipulated in the Biodiversity Technical Note on Biodiversity Impact Calculatio ns by HAD dated 13/10/2022. The BEMP will include the results of the provided Biodiversity Metric and the following: a) Description and evaluation of features to be managed and enhanced b) Extent and location/area of proposed enhancement works on appropria te scale maps and plans to include species/faunal enhancement measures c) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management d) Aims and Objectives of management e) Appropriate management Actions for achieving Aims and Objectives Appeal Decision APP/H1705/W/23/3323328 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 f) An annual work programme (to cover an initial 5 - year period) g) Details of the specialist ecological management body or organisation responsible for responsible for implementation of the Plan h) For each of the first 5 years of the Plan, a pr ogress report sent to the LPA reporting on progress of the annual work programme and confirmation of required Actions for the next 12 - month period i) The Plan will be reviewed and updated every 5 years and implemented for perpetuity The Plan shall include details of the legal and funding mechanisms by which the long - term implementation of the Plan will be secured by the developer with the specialist ecological management body or organisation responsible for its delivery. The Plan shall also set out (where t he results from the monitoring show that the Aims and Objectives of the BEMP are not being met) how contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed and implemented so that the development still delivers the Objectives of the originally appr oved Plan. The approved Plan will be implemented in accordance with the approved details.
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3331724 (Stafford Borough Council) — 2024-03-18
📍 Stafford Borough Council PINS reference: 3331724 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 2 6 February 2024 by Ben Plenty BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 March 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/Y3425/W/23/3331724 Land At Embry Avenue, Stafford ST16 3QF The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. Stafford Borough Council. The appli cation Ref 22/36317/FUL, dated 22 September 2022, was refused by notice dated 24 April 2023. The development proposed is Erection of two two - bed semi - detached houses and two one - bed maisonettes with associated parking and amenity space. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed , and planning permission is granted for the e rection of two two - bed semi - detached houses and two one - bed maisonettes with associated parking and amenity space at Land at Embry Avenue, Stafford ST16 3QF in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/36317/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule. Preliminary Matters 2. The site is located within the influence of the Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation ( SA C) which is a European De signated Site afforded protection under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as amended (the Habitat Regulations). Although not an issue raised by the Council in its decision, it is incumbent upon me as competent authority to consider whether the proposal would be likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the S AC . As such, it is necessary to consider this matter as a main issue. 3. The A ppellants have provided a financial contribution towards mitigating the effects of the proposal on the European Protected Site. A Unilateral Undertaking (UU) , under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act [1990], has been provided to secure a contribution towards mitigation of the identified adverse impact . 4. An a mended plan 1 ha s bee n submitted in support of the appeal. Th i s ha s altered the internal arrangement of plot 3 to switch the bathroom and bedroom 2 . This change has not been subject to re - consultation during the consideration of the planning application . Nonetheless , under the Holborn Studio s Ltd 2 principles , I have considered whether the development is 1 Drawing reference: HB - MA[20]0001 Rev P01 2 Holborn Studios Ltd v The Council of the London Borough of Hackney [2017] EWHC 2823 (Admin ) Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/W/23/3331724 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 so changed that to grant approval would deprive those who should have been consulted the opportunity of such consultation. 5. , I find that the internal change , including a further bedroom window looking to the rear of plot 3, would be minor and would not change the substance of the proposal . Furthermore, the proposal would have no material effect on surrounding neighbouring plots , partly due to the existence of the adjacent substation and the plot not be ing adjacent to the rear garden of No 7a . Consequently , my acce p tance of the plan would not cause procedural unfairness to neighbouring occupiers who would have otherwise require d re - consultation . As such, I have taken the revised plan into account in this appeal. Main Issue s 6. The main issues are: Whether the proposed development would affect the integrity of the Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation (SAC), Whether the proposal would make suitable provision for parking, and The effect of the proposal on the living conditions of future occupiers wit h particular respect to privacy. Reasons Cannock Chase SAC 7. Policy N5 of the Plan for Stafford Borough [2014] (PSB) states that the highest level of protection will be given to European Sites, where development will only be permitted where either there are no adverse effects , or such effects can be mitigated . Furthermore, PSB policy N6 states that development within 15kms of the SAC, leading to a net increase in dwellings, shall provide necessary steps to avoid or mi tigate an y adverse effects which may include contributions to a range of measures. Its states that these measures should be secured through a suitable mechanism (such as a Legal Agreement) to mitigate any adverse harmful effects . 8. The appeal site is located within the 15km Z one of Influence (Z O I) of the SAC, which is primarily allocated due to its heathland habit at. This is the largest in the Midlands and th e habitat and dependent species are of very high nature conservation importa nce . It is incumbent upon me, in accordance with the Habitat Regulations as competent authority, to consider whether the proposal would be likely to have a significant effect on the integrity of the SAC through an Appropriate Assessment. 9. The Council has fo the SAC, known as the Cannock Chase SAC Partnership, to assess the impact V isitor Observation Study , that development w ithin the ZOI would increase visitors to the SAC having a deleterious effect on its integrity. Recreational pressure, path creation and widening, erosion and nutrient enrichment create increasing detrimental effect on the heathland . T he majority of visitor s to the SAC are from within the 0 - 15km zone of influence surrounding the Cannock Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/W/23/3331724 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 Chase SAC. Natural England has confirmed, in standing advice, that any development within 15kms of the SAC would be likely to cause significant harm through increasing visito r numbers. 10. The Cannock Chase SAC Partnership has agreed a series of mitigation and avoidance measures with Natural England. These are referred to as Strategic Access Management and Monitoring Measures (SAMMM). Based on the submitted evidence I find that the proposal, individually and in combination with other development, would be likely to have an adverse effect on the integrity of the SAC. Under the Habitat Regulations, such impact would need to be avoided and mitigated through a package of suitabl e measures as detailed in the SAMMM . The Council has produced Planning Guidance [2023] to explain the approach to mitigating the impact of new development on the SAC . T he approach agreed through the SAMMM is to require a mitigation payment per net resident ial dwelling from all new development within the 0 - 11. The Habitat Regulations require me to consider whether compliance with conditions or other restrictions, such as a planning obligation, would enable it to be ascertained that the p roposal would not adversely affect the integrity of the SAC. The Council has identified that, in agreement with standing advice of N a tural England , that subject to a contribution of ?329.83 per dwelling being provided towards mitigation me a sures , the integ rity of the SAC would not be affected. 12. The submitted UU provides for a sum to be paid to the Council should the appeal be allowed. Th is co m mits the Appel l ant , under schedule One , to make the required contribution to the Council prior to the commencement of development. This is a signed and executable document and would suitabl y secure the required mitigation to my satisfaction. This sum accords with the value of contribution as identified by the Council as necessary to be proport ionate and suitable for the scale of proposed development to contribute towards the SAMMM . 13. For the reason given above, due to the provision of suitable mitigation, I conclude through an Appropriate Assessment that the proposed development would not have a significant effect, either alone or in combination with other development, upon the integrity of the Cannock Chase SAC. Accordingly, the proposal would accord with PSB policies N5 and N6, the Cannock Chase SAC Guidance [2023] and the National Planning Poli cy Framework (the Framework). These seek, among other matters, for development to be resisted if it would lead to an adverse effect upon the integrity of the SAC. Parking provision 14. Embry Avenue is a short cul - de - sac with two rows of t e rraced houses facing across a narrow roadway. Houses here have narrow front gardens and most do not have on plot parking. As a result, the road accommodate s the majority of parking requirement for residents and visitors. At the end of the road is a turning head that would be directly in front of the proposed development and four on plot parking spaces. The s c heme provides for 2 two - bed dwellings and 2 one be d maisonette . 15. PSB Policy T2 re quires parking and manoeuvring facilities for development to make adequate provision for parking in accordance with appendix B. This Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/W/23/3331724 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 appendix explains that parking should be provided at a rate of two space s for up to a 3 bed detached or semi - detached dwelling and one space per 4 units for visitors. Dwellings that ar e not detached or semi - detached , with up to 2 bedrooms , should provide two spaces per dwelling, with one space per 4 units for visitors. The Council has determined that for the proposal this creates a demand for six spaces. 16. However, t he policy also states that parking provision will be assessed on a flexible site - by - site basis depending on the provision of public transport and access to local services. The policy sets out criteria for where reduced parking provision would be considered . This tak es into consideration accessibility, contents of any Travel Plan, traffic generation, and access to public car parking. 17. The site is within a residential area close to the town centre. T he Appellant explains that the site is around 1.3km from the town ce ntre and Douglas Road includes the frequent 11/11A bus route into town. The site is also around 300 m etres from shops and 700 m etres from a primary school. As such, i t is within walking distance of neighbourhood services, education and employment opportuni ties. 18. The Appellant has demonstrated, using Census data, that car ownership in the area is relatively low. This shows that over a third of households do not own a car or van and around half only own one vehicle. During my site visit , I noted that Embry Ave nue was occupied by only three cars and retained substantial on - street parking capacity. Although providing only a snap - shot in time, and despite expecting parking demand to be higher in evenings and weekends, the evidence suggests that on street parking would be available to visitors of the proposed development if required. Accordingly, based on the car ownership locally, the type of accommodation proposed and the availability of sustainable travel options, a m inor reduction of the parking requirements of appendix B would be acceptable. 19. Although t he Highway Authority con siders that the proposal may result in parking within the turning head , such parking would block access to the proposed parking spaces . Accord ingly , the proposal would be more likely to ensure that the turning head is kept free of parked cars , improving its functionality and the safety of motorists entering Embry Avenue. Furthermore, the C o uncil is concern ed that the proposal does not demonstrate how users of the southern - most parking space would access the space. However, the submitted tracking plan demonstrates how a vehicle would be able to exit the parking bay without crossing third party land. Consequently, I am s atisfied that motorists would be able to reverse out of the space onto the highway without causing undue hazard on the highway. It has therefore been un necessary for 20. Consequently , the proposed development would make adequate provision for off - street parking and improve the safe manoeu v rability of vehicles in the highway. Accordingly, the proposal would comply with PSB policy T2 . This seeks development to , among other matters, ensu re adequate parking is provided in compliance with parking standards and with regard to relative accessibility . Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/W/23/3331724 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 Living conditions 21. The propos al includes four dwellings , arranged in two groups, one being perpendicular to the other. As such, units 3 and 4 would have a front elevation that looks onto the side of the maisonette of plots 1 and 2. The garden of plot 2 is to its side and alongside the frontages of plots 3 and 4. 22. A fence is proposed to the front and side of this garden to afford a reasonable degree of p rivacy , preventing overlooking from ground floor living windows of plots 3 and especially plot 4. First floor windows would consist of bathrooms only, which c ould be obscurely gl a zed to secure intervisible privacy. As a result, the garden of plot 2 would not be materially overlooked providing a reasonable level of privacy for future occupiers of this unit. 23. Accordingly, th e proposal would accord with PSB p olicy NI and the Design Supplementary Planning Document [2018]. These require development to, inter alia , ensure that the design and layout of a scheme take account of the amenity of adjacent residential areas and achieve adequate levels of privacy . Other Matters 24. Interested parties have raised concerns that the proposal would result in an over intensification of the plot. However, the scheme meets Nationally Described Space Standards and would have gardens of sufficient size to enable occupiers to enjoy a good standard of outside living space. The scheme would not appear contrived or congested on site and follows the established pattern of development formed by existing built form both in front and behind the site. This would therefore complement the local streetscene and provide a visual terminus to the street. 25. The site is an area of rough grass , largely on a gradient and may have been accessed in the past by the public for recreation . However, due to its gradient it has limited use for local occupiers and as it is in private ownership the site could be secured with fencing preventing public access. I therefore concur with the Council that the scheme would not result in the loss of public open space. 26. Some local residents have raised concerns that the scheme would result in overlooking. However, windows proposed close to boundaries serve non - habitable rooms and the re a r faci n g bathroom and kitchen window s of plot 2 could be obscurely glazed to prevent overlo oking. Other first floor windows , such as the bedroom windows of plots 3 and 4, would be a considerable distance from adjacent neighbouring dwellings preventing material overlooking. 27. It is recognised that the site is small, and the proposal may generate so me construction disturbance to local residents due to noise and general disturbance. However, the scheme is for only 4 properties and has space within it to accommodate materials and construction vehicles without overspilling onto the highway. Furthermore, any disturbance would be largely limited to daytime only and would be for a temporary duration. Conditions 28. I have considered the use of conditions in line with the guidance set out in the suggested conditions into consideration and impose these with some amendments and adjustments for clarity. Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/W/23/3331724 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 29. I have imposed the standard conditions with respect to timeframe and approved plans as advised by the PPG for clarity and certainty [con ditions 1 and 2 ]. Conditions are necessary with respect to the provision of planting , materials and bin storage areas in the interests of the character and appearance of the area [4, 7 and 8] . 30. The implementation of the approved parking areas and cycle storage areas are required by condition to ensure that the proposed scheme functions well [3 and 5]. It is also necessary for a condition to be imposed to require the biodiversity measures are implemented to en hance the ecological value of the site i n accordance wit h PSB policy N4 [6] . Further a condition is necessary to require bathroom windows are obscurely glazed in the interests of the living conditions of neighbouring and future occupiers [9] . Conclusion 31. The proposal would accord with the develop ment plan, when taken as a whole, and t here are no material considerations that indicate the app eal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. As such, the appeal is allowed, and planning permission granted subject to the atta ched conditions. 32. Ben Plenty INSPECTO R Appeal Decision APP/Y3425/W/23/3331724 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 Schedule of conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location and Block Plan - Drawing No. WHB - SA[20]0001 P00, Site Plan As Proposed - Drawing No. WHB - SA[20]0005 P01, Cycle Storage - Drawing No. WHB - SA[20]0008 P00, Site Section As Proposed - Drawing No. WHB - SA[20]0007 P00, Plots 1&2 Elevations As Proposed - Drawing No. WHB - MA[20]0002 P00, Plots 3&4 Elevations As Proposed - Drawing No. WHB - MA[20]0003 P00, Plots 1 - 4 Floor Plans As Proposed - Drawing No. WHB - MA[20]0001 P0 1. 3) The parking areas, shown on th e approved layout plan, shall be provided and available for use prior to the occupation of any dwelling. The parking areas shall be retained and maintained in perpetuity. 4) Prior to above ground construction, details of all the developments external finis hing materials shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall thereafter be constructed in accordance with those approved details. 5) Prior to the development being brought into use the cycle storage detailed on the submitted plans WHB - SA[20]0005 P01 and WHB - SA[20]0008 P00 shall be fully implemented and thereafter retained. 6) Prior to the development being brought into use, the recommendations for biodiversity enhancement detailed within the Preliminary Ecological Appra isal (June 2022) shall be fully implemented and thereafter retained. 7) Prior to first occupation, the hard and soft landscaping detailed shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and shall be fully implement within six mo nths of first occupation, and any plants or trees that are removed or die or become seriously damaged or diseased within a period of five years from the date of planting shall be replaced with others of similar size and species in the next planting season, unless the local planning authority gives written consent to any variation. 8) Prior to first occupation, full details of means of enclosure and bin storage shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and thereafter fully i mplemented in accordance with those approved details. 9) Notwithstanding the plans hereby approved, all bathroom windows (to Pilkington level 3 or equivalent) and the kitchen window of plot 2 , shall be obscure glazed prior to first occupation and maintained a s such thereafter . End of conditions⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
Conclusion 31. The proposal would accord with the develop ment plan, when taken as a whole, and t here are no material considerations that indicate the app eal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. As such, the appeal is allowed, and planning permission granted subject to the atta ched conditions. 32. Ben Plenty INSPECTO R
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3319595 (Portsmouth City Council) — 2024-05-02
📍 Portsmouth City Council PINS reference: 3319595 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - i nspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 20 February 2024 by C Carpenter BA MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 2 May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/Z1775/W/23/3319595 41 Margate Road, Southsea , Portsmouth PO5 1EY The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr Birmingham (Bunked) against the decision of Portsmouth City Council. The applicati on Ref is 22/01607/FUL. The development proposed is change of use from C4 HMO to s ui g eneris HMO for more than 6 persons . Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for change of use from C4 HMO to s ui g eneris HMO for more than 6 persons at 41 Margate Road, Southsea, Portsmouth PO5 1EY in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 22/01607/FUL, and the plans submitted with it, subject to the following conditions: 1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than 3 years from the date of this decision. 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: 1 - 1250 Location Plan; 1 - 500 Block Plan; PG.4007.19.4 REV D Existing & Proposed Plans . Preliminary Matters 2. The description in the heading above has been taken from the planning application form. In Part E of the appeal form it is stated that the description of development has not changed but, nevertheless, a different wording has been entere d. Neither of the main parties has provided written confirmation that a revised description of development has been agreed. Accordingly, I have used the one given on the original application. 3. The National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) was updat ed in December 2023, during the course of this appeal. However, insofar as the contents are relevant to this appeal, the Framework has not changed. Therefore, I am satisfied no party would be disadvantaged by not having the opportunity to comment on the re vised Framework. Appeal Decision APP/Z1775/W/23/3319595 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Main Issue s 4. The main issues are: w hether the development would provide adequate living conditions for future occupiers of the HMO , with particular reference to toilet and bathroom facilities ; and the effect of the proposal on the integri ty of protected European s ites. Reasons Living conditions 5. Houses in multiple occupation Ensuring mixed and balanced communities Supplementary Planning Document 2019 (HMO SPD) set s standards for toilet and bathroom provision in HMOs of different sizes. In the case of an HMO accommodating 6 - 10 persons, it requires two separate bathrooms and two separate WCs with wash - hand basin, one of which can be contained within a bathroom. The SPD does not spec ify where in an HMO these facilities should be located. 6. The proposed development would include a shower - room with toilet and wash - hand basin on both the first and second floor s, and an additional separate toilet and wash - hand basin on the second floor. Thi s would comply with the SPD standard. There would be a relatively short distance between the ground floor bedrooms and the first - floor facilities . There is no pertinent evidence before me to demonstrate why this arrangement would be harmful to the living c onditions of future occupiers of the HMO. 7. I therefore conclude the development would provide adequate living conditions for existing and future occupiers of the HMO, with particular reference to toilet and bathroom provision. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Polic y PCS 23 of The Portsmouth Plan tegy (PP) , which requires a good standard of living environment for future residents of the development . I also find no conflict with the Framework, where it seeks a high standard of amenity for future users of development. I also find no conflict with the HMO SPD. Integrity of protected European s ites 8. The appeal site lies within the Zone of Influence of the Portsmouth Harbour , Chichester and Langstone Harbours, Solent and Dorset Coast , and Solent and Southampton Waters Special Protection Area s (the SPA s ) ; and the Solent Maritime and Solent and Isle of Wight Lagoons Special Area s of Conservation (the SAC s ) . The SPAs and SAC s are European sites protected under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (the Habitats Regulations). 9. The SPA s and SAC s encompass a major estuarine system compris ing extensive mudflats , sandflats , sand banks and salt meadows together with adjacent coastal habitats including saline lagoons, shingle beaches, reedbeds, damp woodland an d grazing marsh. The se habitats support a rich variety of flora and fauna that form the food resource for estuarine birds. In sum mer , the site s are important for breeding seabirds, including G ulls and four species of T ern. In winter, the sites hold a large and diverse assemblage of waterbird s , including the B lack - tailed godwit, D ark - bellied B rent goose , R inged plover and T eal . Appeal Decision APP/Z1775/W/23/3319595 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 10. The SPA s and SAC s provide an important recreational and economic resource. On the evidence before me, the proposal, pa rticularly when combined with other development in the area, would be likely to have a significant effect on th e s e protected European site s . Consequently, under the Habitats Regulations, an appropriate assessment is required in relation to the effect of th e development on the integrity of the sites. This responsibility falls to me as competent authority in the context of this appeal. Appropriate Assessment 11. The conservation objectives of the SPA s and SAC s aim to ensure the integrity of the sites is maintained or restored. This includes maintaining or restoring the extent, distribution, structure, function and supporting processes of the habitats; and the population and distribution of each of the qualifyin g features within the sites. 12. There is a threat to the integrity of the SPA s and SACs from public access and disturbance, including from recreational activities such as walking, dog walking , wildlife watching and water sports. 13. Nutrient pollution is a probl em for the habitats in the SPAs and SAC s because e xcessive levels of nutrients contained in nitrogen and phosphorus can cause the rapid growth of certain plants and algae through the process of eutrophication. This can displace species that are either impo rtant in their own right or which act as sources of food and shelter for other species , thereby adversely affecting the qualifying feature s of the European sites. 14. It is likely additional occupant s c ould visit the SPA s and SAC s , resulting in incr eased recreational activity that would disturb the protected habitats and birds within the sites. It is also likely the proposed larger HMO would generate more wastewater , which would increase levels of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the protected sites . Therefore, the development, alone and in combination with other development, would be likely to have significant adverse effects on the integrity and conservation objectives of the SP A s and SAC . 15. The parties have agreed a financial sum in accordance with the Solent Recreation Mitigation Strategy 2017 , Ne utral Mitigation Strategy for New Dwellings 2022 and the Solent Nutrient Neutrality Calculator . Natural England has been consulted as part of this appropriate assessment and has confirmed that contributions that accord with the above documents would be sufficient to avoid an adverse impact on the integrity of the SPAs and SAC s . 16. I am satisfied on the evidence before me that the agreed sum has been received by the Council by way of a section 111 agreement, for the purposes of contributing to the strategic mitigation measures described above. I therefore find there would be no adverse ef fect from the proposed development on the integrity of the SPA s and SAC as protected European sites. Accordingly, I find no conflict with Policy PCS13 of the PP, which reflects the requirement of the Habitats Regulations . The proposed development would als o be consistent with the Framework, which requires adequate mitigation if significant harm to sites protected under the Habitats Regulations cannot be avoided . Appeal Decision APP/Z1775/W/23/3319595 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 Conclusion 17. For the reasons set out above , I conclude the proposed development would not have a n adverse effect on the integrity of protected European sites . Other Matters 18. The premises is already in HMO use , so the propos al would not change the proportion of HMOs to C3 dwellings in the neighbourhood. There is no pertinent evidence to suggest the la rger HMO is not needed because of high levels of vacancy in other premises let to students. There is also little to substantiate concerns that the HMO use at 41 Margate Road causes noise, crime, anti - social behaviour, litter or parking problems in the stre et. The Council is satisfied t he addition of one single - person room would have little material effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers or on levels of car parking in the street . On the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree. 19. The number of premises owned by the appellant is a private matter with no material bearing on my assessment of the planning issues in this appeal. The approach to notifying residents of pla nning applications and its decision - making timescales are outside my jurisdiction . Conditions 20. The Council has not put forward conditions . In addition to the standard time limit condition, I have imposed a condition requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans. This is in the interest of certainty. Conclusion 21. For the above reasons the proposal accords with the development plan, read as a whole. Material considerations, including the Framework, do n ot indicate that a decision should be taken otherwise than in accordance with it. I therefore conclude the appeal should be allowed. C Carpenter INSPECTOR⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
For the reasons set out above , I conclude the proposed development would not have a n adverse effect on the integrity of protected European sites . Other Matters 18. The premises is already in HMO use , so the propos al would not change the proportion of HMOs to C3 dwellings in the neighbourhood. There is no pertinent evidence to suggest the la rger HMO is not needed because of high levels of vacancy in other premises let to students. There is also little to substantiate concerns that the HMO use at 41 Margate Road causes noise, crime, anti - social behaviour, litter or parking problems in the stre et. The Council is satisfied t he addition of one single - person room would have little material effect on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers or on levels of car parking in the street . On the evidence before me, I see no reason to disagree. 19. The number of premises owned by the appellant is a private matter with no material bearing on my assessment of the planning issues in this appeal. The approach to notifying residents of pla nning applications and its decision - making timescales are outside my jurisdiction . Conditions 20. The Council has not put forward Conclusio…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3335737 (Ribble Valley Borough Council) — 2024-05-01
📍 Ribble Valley Borough Council LPA code: E07000124 PINS reference: 3335737 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision Site visit made on 10 April 2024 by Alison Partington BA (Hons) MA MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 01 May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/T2350/W/23/3335737 Land adjacent to 110 Ribchester Road, Clayton Le Dale, Blackburn, Lancas hire , BB1 9HQ The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr Mark Skoczen again st the decision of Ribble Valley Borough Council. The application Ref is 3/2023/0321. The development proposed is one self - build dwelling. Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and outline planning permission is granted for one self - build dwelling at l and adjacent to 110 Ribchester Road, Blackburn, BB1 9HQ in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 3/2023/0321, subject to the conditions in Annex A . Pr ocedural Matters 2. The applicatio n was made in outline with only access to be determined at this stage . I have determined the appeal on this basis, trea ting the proposed site plan as illustrative other than in relation to the access. 3. It has been suggested there are restrictive covenants o n the land. Whilst if this is the case it may have implications for implementation, in determining the appeal I have only had regard to the planning merits of the case. Main Issue 4. The main issue in the appeal is whether or not the site is a suitable site f or housing having regard to the development plan policies for the location of new development . Reasons 5. The appeal site is part of an area of agricultural land that forms a gap between 110 and 126 R ibchester Road. It is located outside , but close to, the settlement boundary for Wilpshire as shown on Inset 14 of the Proposals Map that accompanies the Housing and Economic Development Development Plan Document (adopted October 2019) . This indicates that the boundary runs between 108 and 110 Ribchester Roa d. As such, for planning policy purposes the site forms part of the open countryside . 6. Key Statement DS1 of the Ribble Valley Core Strategy (adopted December 2016) (CS) sets out the development strategy for the borough. It seeks to direct new housing primarily to the three principal settlements in the districts. Appeal Decision APP/T2350/W/23/3335737 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Wi lpshire is identified as a Tier 1 Village in DS1 . These villages are stated to be the more sustainable of the 32 defined settlements and therefore considered suitable for some housing growth . 7. CS Policy DMG2 indicates that outside of the settlement boundaries development should be for one of a small number of types of development that it lists. In addition, Policy DMH3 of the CS sets out the circumstances when dwellings may be appropriat e in the open countryside. It is no part of the development listed in either of these two policies . 8. As a result, the proposal would be contrary to the development strategy of the CS and would conflict with Policies DMG2 and DMH3. Other Matters Self - b uild h ousing considerations 9. The proposal would be for a self - build property and is accompanied by a signed Unilateral Undertaking that would ensure that any development of the site would be a form of development that ac cords with the legal definition of self - build and custom housebuilding as defined in the Se lf - build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 (as amended by the Housing and Planning Act 2016) . 10. The Act requires that within the three years following each base period an authority must give development permiss i ons for the carrying out of self - buil d and custom ho u s ebuilding on enough serviced plots to meet t he demand for base period. 11. I have been provided with differing figures for both the demand for, and supply of, self - build and custom hous ebui ld ing in the borough by the appellant and the Council . Howe ver, section 123 of the Levelling - up and Regeneration Act 2023 which came into force on 31 January 2024 made changes to the way both the demand and supply of self - build and cust om hous ebuild ing are to be calculat ed. 12. Demand is evidenced not by the number of people on the register at any one time but by the number of entries added to the register in each base period. W hilst authorities may remove individual details from the registe r, the number of entries remains the same, and retrospective removal of an entry does not reduce the demand figure. More over, unmet demand is now cumulative , so any demand that has not been met within the three year compliance period does not dissipate but rolls over and remains part of the demand that an authority has to m e et. 13. In addition , the recent amendments mean that a development permission now only counts in meeting the duty if it is actually for self - bu ild or custom housebuilding a permission is no longer considered suitable if the development could include self - build and custom housing. Whilst regulations are still awaited that will define exactly what can be count ed as a development permission , the government have indicated th at it is likely to require that for a permission to count it will need to be characterised by a condition or planning obligation making that requirement explicit. 14. As such , it is clear the intention is that only land specifically for sel f - build or custom h ousebuilding qualifie s towards a grant of permission to me e t demand. Appeal Decision APP/T2350/W/23/3335737 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 This change means that i t is no longer reasonable to count extant outline planning permissions as meeting the definition unless they have a mechanism attached to them to secure the development is restricted to self - build and custom housebuilding. 15. I have not been supplied with the number of entries on the register for each of the base periods since the requirements of the Act began , although the appellant has supplied evidence of the number of entries on the register for the 5 base years between 2017/18 2021/22 . These are 16, 14, 8, 12 and 15 respectively. In addition , they have indicated that only 1 planning permission has been granted for self - build or cust om housebuilding secured by a legal agreement or condition. This is for a single dwelling. Th ese figures were all supplied to the appellant by the Council. 16. Consequently, whilst I do not have an accurate figure for the demand for self - build and custom housebuilding in the authorit y , on the basis o f the evidence that is before me in relation to demand and supply, it would appear that demand is significantly greater than the Council estimates . Furthermore, given th at only one dwelling has been granted permission that qualifies towards me e ting this demand , and unmet demand has to roll over, it is likely that demand is likely to increase in forth coming years. 17. In the light of this , although the appeal scheme is only for 1 dwelling , I consider that substantial weight shou ld be given to the fact that it is a self - build dwelling that would contribute towards meeting the significant demand for such housing in the borough . Accessibility to services and facilities 18. Although located just outside the settlement boundary , t he appea l site lies within easy walking distance of the primary school, village hall, church, public house and bus stops in both directions. The la t ter are served by an hourly service to Preston and Blackburn 6 days a week from around 7am to 8pm. There is also a two hourly service on a Sunday from approximately 8.30 am to 6.30 pm. Thus, future occupiers would not be solely reliant on the private car for all their day - to - day needs. 19. The Council has raised no concerns with regard to the proposed acces s and the plans show that satisfactory visibility splays can be provided. So, I agree with this conclusion. Whilst in the immediate vici nity of the site there is only a pavement on the other side of the road, as there is adequate visibility people would be able to cross the road to this safely. Character and appearance 20. Although the appeal site forms part of a wider field and currently has an agricultural character , it is lo c ated between two house s that form part of a ribbon of development that on this side of the road continues all the way to the junction of Ribchester Road with the A59. The development of the site would be seen as a natural extension of the row of houses on this side of the road. Whilst it would change the character of this part of the fiel d, visually it would not be seen as an incongruous incursion into the countryside. 21. Although the scale, layout, appearance and landscaping are reserved for future consideration , I see no reason why the development of the site for a dwelling could not be achieved in a way that would respect the character and Appeal Decision APP/T2350/W/23/3335737 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 appearance of the surrounding area. As a result , in this regard the proposal would not conflict with the requirement in Policy DMG 2 that developments in the open countryside should be in k eeping with the character of the landscape and acknowledge the special character of the area through its size, design, materials, landscaping and siting. Moreover, the development would be of a scale commensurate to the size of the existing settlement. Con clusion and Conditions 22. The proposal would be contrary to the development strategy of the CS and would conflict with CS Policies DMG2 and DMH3 . However, the prop osal would be a self - bui ld dwelling . Given the likely level of unmet demand for such housing in the borough this is a material consideration to which I give substantial weight. Moreover, although outside the settlement boundary the appeal site is within walking distance of a range of service s and facilities meaning that future occupiers would not be total ly dependent on the private car to meet all their day - to - day needs. The proposal would also not unacceptably harm the character of the landscape or the area. I consider that, in this instance, these material consideration s outweigh the conflict wit h the development plan . 23. I note the evidence from both sides as to whether the policies of the development plan should be considered out of date because they do not take account of the requirements of the Act , and therefore whether or not paragraph 11d of the National Planning Policy Framework is engaged . However, i n the light of my conclusion above it is not necessary for me to consider this further. 24. For the reasons set out above, I conclude the appeal should be allowed . 25. In addition to the standard impleme ntation and reserved matters conditions (conditions 1 - 3), to provide certainty it is necessary to define the plans with which the scheme should accord (condition 4) . Condition 5 is necessary to safeguard the development from any potential contaminated land and condition 6 is required in the interests of ecology. Condition 7 is necessary in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. 26. To ensure the site is satisfactorily drained condition 8 is imposed. Condition 9 is required to ensure any matters of archaeological interest are found and recorded. For highway safety reasons conditions 10 - 13 are required . However, I have not imposed sugg ested condition 7 as it relates to a matter that is covered by the Building Regulations. Alison Partington INSPECTOR Appeal Decision APP/T2350/W/23/3335737 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 Annex A Conditions 1) Details of the appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale, (hereinafter called "the reserved matters") shall be subm itted to , and approved in writing by , the local planning authority before any development takes place and the development shall be carried out as approved. 2) Application for approval of the reserved matters shall be made to the local planning authority not later than three years from the date of this permission. 3) The development hereby permitted shall take place not later than two years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters to be approved. 4) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site Location Plan Drawing No 2283; Existing Site Plan Drawing No 2283 - 01; and Proposed Site Plan Dr awing No 2283 - 02; but only in respect of those matters not reserved for later approval . 5) No development hereby permitted shall commence until a desk study to investigate and assess the risk of the potential for on - site contamination has been submitted to, a nd approved in writing by, the local planning authority. If the desk study identifies potential contamination, a detailed site investigation shall be carried out in accordance with a written methodology, which shall first have been submitted to , and approv ed in writing by , the l ocal p lanning a uthority. If remediation measures are then considered necessary, a scheme for decontamination of the site shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the l ocal p lanning a uthority and the approved scheme implemen ted prior to the development of the site. Any changes to the agreed scheme must be approved in writing by the l ocal p lanning a uthority prior to any works being undertaken. 6) Notwithstanding the submitted details, no development hereby permitted , including any site preparation, demolition, scrub/hedgerow clearance or tree works/removal shall commence or be undertaken on site until details of habitat provisions to be made for protected species (artificial bird nesting boxes and artificial bat roosti ng sites/provision) have been submitted to, and approved in writing by , the l ocal p lanning a uthority. The approved artificial bird/bat box details shall be provided in accordance with the approved details before the dwelling is occupied and shall thereafte r be retained as such . 7) Prior to the submission of a reserved matters application relating to layout, or simultaneously with that reserved matters application, details of the existing and proposed ground, slab and finished floor levels shall be submitted to , and approved in writing by, the local planning authority. The development shall be constructed and completed in accordance with the approved details. 8) No development hereby permitted , other than demolition works, shall take place until full details of the surface and foul water drainage systems for the site have be en submitted to , and approved in writing by , the l ocal p lanning a uthority. The detailed surface water scheme shall be based Appeal Decision APP/T2350/W/23/3335737 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 upon the sustainable drainage principles and requirements set out in the National Planning Policy Framework, Planning Practice Guidance and Defra Technical Standards for Sustainable Drainage Systems. No surface water shall be allowed to discharge to the pu blic foul sewer(s), directly or indirectly. The drainage system shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is completed and shall be retained as such thereafter . 9) No development hereby permitted shall ta ke place until the applicant, or their agent or successors in title, has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological works. This must be carried out in accordance with a written scheme of investigatio n , which shall first have been submitted to , and approved in writing by , the l ocal p lanning a uthority. 10) The visibility splays shown on Proposed Site Plan Drawing No 2283 - 02 shall be provided prior to first occupation of the dwelling hereby p ermitted and shall not at any time thereafter be obstru cted by any building, wall, fence, hedge, tree, shrub or other device exceeding a height of 1 metre above the crown level of the adjacent highway. 11) Before the access is first used for vehicular purposes, that part of the access extending from the highway b oundary for a minimum distance of 5m into the site shall be surfaced in tarmacadam, concrete, block paviors, or other permanent hard surfaced material . 12) Notwithstanding the provisions of Schedule 2, Part 1 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitte d Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any Order revoking or re - enacting that Order with or without modification), any gateposts and associated mechanisms erected at the point of access shall be positioned within the site outside the adopted highway and a ny gates shall at all times open away from the highway 13) Prior to first occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, the off - site works of highway improvement, namely widening of the site access, shall be carried out.⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
The development of the site would be seen as a natural extension of the row of houses on this side of the road. Whilst it would change the character of this part of the fiel d, visually it would not be seen as an incongruous incursion into the countryside. 21. Although the scale, layout, appearance and landscaping are reserved for future consideration , I see no reason why the development of the site for a dwelling could not be achieved in a way that would respect the character and Appeal Decision APP/T2350/W/23/3335737 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 appearance of the surrounding area. As a result , in this regard the proposal would not conflict with the requirement in Policy DMG 2 that developments in the open countryside should be in k eeping with the character of the landscape and acknowledge the special character of the area through its size, design, materials, landscaping and siting. Moreover, the development would be of a scale commensurate to the size of the existing settlement. Con clusion and conclusion above it is not necessary for me to consider this further. 24. For the reasons set out above, I conclude the appeal should be allowed . 25. In addition to th…
✓ ALLOWED
Appeal Decision 3334352 (Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole) — 2024-05-01
📍 Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole LPA code: E06000058 PINS reference: 3334352 === FULL INSPECTOR DECISION === https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate Appeal Decision S ite visit made on 4 April 20 24 by G Roberts BA (Hons) MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 1 st May 2024 Appeal Ref: APP/ V1260/W/23/3334352 46 - 48 Dalmeny Road, Bournemouth, BH6 4BW The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. The appeal is made by Mr N Briant Dalmeny Ltd a gainst the decision of BCP C ouncil . The app l ication Ref . 7 - 2023 - 2567 - P , dated 19 Au gust 2023 , was refused by notice dated 10 November 2023 . The development proposed is demolish existing buildings and erection of 4 houses . Decision 1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to demolish existing buildings and erection of 4 houses at 46 - 48 Dalmeny Road, Bournemouth, BH6 4BW , in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref . 7 - 2023 - 2567 - P , dated 19 August 2023 , and subject to the conditions listed in the Annex to this decisi on . Preliminary Matters 2. I have adopted the description of development as it appears on the application form but deleted the reference to the previous approval as this wording is superfluous and not an act of development . 3. Since the decision was issued a r evised version of the National Planning Policy Framework (Framework) was published in December 2023. However, the relevant p olicies remain broadly unchanged , albeit some of the paragraph numbering is different. Whilst some of the housing policies have al so changed I am satisfied that these do not affect the main issu es raised by the appeal proposal and I have no t therefore sought any further comments from the parties . 4. paragraph to this raised an objection on the basis that the proposal would generate increased occupancy and a net demand on designated heathland and would need to secure heathla nd mitigation in accord with policy CS33 of the Bournemouth Local Plan: Core S trategy (October 2012) (BLP) and the Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework 2020 2025 (DHPF) . As the proposal failed to secure suitable mitigation contributions the Council alle ged that it was contrary to those policies and the corresponding policy in the Framework. 5. Following the submission of the appeal , the Council wrote to the Appellant in relation to this matter and a Unilateral Undertaking , dated the 9 November 2023 , that ha d been submitted by the Appellant to secure th e contribution required . Minor alterations were required to the submitted Unilateral Appeal Decision APP / V1260/W/23/3334352 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 2 Undertaking (UU) and a revised UU was signed and dated 12 March 2024 . This was returned to the Council with confirmation , i n an email dated 13 March 2024 , of the direct payment of the contribution to the Council. The Appellants email of 13 March 2024 also sought confirmation from the Council that this UU overcame the second paragraph of the reason for refusal. I have not bee n provided with any further correspondence from the Council but paragraph 2.5 of their Statement of Case ( Council SOC) confirms that the Appellant has agreed to secure the relevant contribution through a UU which would meet the requirements of policy CS33 and the provisions of the DHPF, and subject to the appeal being allowed it would satisfy this ground. I have determine d the appeal on that basis. 6. Reference has been made to the extensive planning history of the appeal site. This includes an appeal that w as dismissed to alter, extend and convert the appeal properties into six flats , with a separate detached house at the rear, on 17 September 2020 (ref. APP/V1260/W/20/3252784) (2020 Appeal). The Inspector dismissed th at appeal as he was unable to conclude that the development would not adversely a ffect the integrity of the Dorset Heathland Special Protection Area & Ramsar site, and the Dorset Heaths Special Area of Conservation (European site). In doing so, the Inspector found that the impact of th e scheme on the character and appearance of the area would be acceptable. I have had regard to those findings in determining this appeal. I have also had regard to the subsequent history and specifically the Council grant of planning permission on 4 May 2023 t o demolish the existing buildings and erect four dwellinghouses (ref. 7 - 2022 - 2567 - N) (2023 Approval). Main Issue 7. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area . Reasons 8. The appeal site is located on the corner of Dalmeny Road and Harbour Road and comprises two large detached two storey properties with accommodation in the roof. The roof accommodation within 46 Dalmeny Road is provided by various dormers within its hipped roof. On 48 Dalme ny Road , it is provided through the gable ends on the front, side and rear of its roof. The surrounding area comprise s similar two storey detached properties with accommodation in the roof as well as chalet style bungalows. A number of properties have be en altered, extended and replaced, with a mixture of old and new . There is no uniform style with properties varying in terms of their form, scale, mass, ridge heights, detailing and materials. There are also examples of large flatted developments located closer to the seafront. 9. The appeal proposal involves the demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of a building comprising four houses , with internal garages and a driveway at the front and gardens at the rear ( albeit Plot 4 also includ es a side garden due to its corner location ) . The proposed development is essentially three storeys, although the second floor is partly accommodated within the main roof space and also in the proposed g able ends that project from the front, side and rear of the new building . 10. The proposal has been submitted as a revision to the 2023 Approval, a consent that remains ext a nt and is ref e rred to by the Appellant as a fall - back option. I Appeal Decision APP / V1260/W/23/3334352 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 3 understand that the ch anges largely relate to the proposed second floor and roof , and are summarised in paragraph 1.2 of the Appellants Planning & Design Statement (August 2023) and section 5 of their Statement of Case (Appellant SOC). In comparison to the 2023 Approval, the m ain changes are highlighted as : a change in the pitch of the gable roofs to Dalmeny Road from 45 degrees to 40 degrees and resulting increase in height of the ridge to the gables by some 0.3 metres and eaves by some 0.9 metres; increase in the height of th e ridge to the gable closest to the corner with Harbour Road by some 0.36 metres; increase in the height of the pitched section of the roof between the tw o front gables by some 1.26 metres ; and replacement of the rooflights between the two front gables wit h standard windows. 11. In combination, all of these changes, when compared to the 2023 Approval, are, in my view, modest. I am also satisfied that the resulting changes to the design, scale, height, mass, articulation and form of the proposed second floor an d roof are also thus modest . As such, I disagree with the Council and consider that the revised proposal would continue to secure an acceptable and sympathetic high quality design that would not be out of character with its surroundings or with its promin ent corner location. 12. The Council contend that the changes result in a proposed building that is of excess 3 storey scale appearance . As with the 2023 Approval the proposed building would include 3 storeys of accommodation , with the third storey partially within the roofscape. The proposed building would not exceed 3 storeys , and as is shown on the submitted plans and as I observed on site the r esulting eaves and ridge heights would remain broadly comparable to those in Dalmeny Road. Moreover, the variety of ridge and eave hights and roof forms that exist in Dalmeny Road are part of its character, as it the presence of gabled roof forms. In thi s respect , I agree with the Appellant that the changes to the gable roof form s and roof pitch would enable the new development to better align and integrate with the Dalmeny Road streetscene. 13. I accept that the proposed revisions , when compared to the 2023 Approval, would result in changes to the ridge heights of the front gables and the pi t ched roof in between , but I am satisfied that all of these changes would not be more visually prominent than the design already approved . The ridge height to the pitche d roof would still sit lower than the ridge height of the front gables and it would be set well back from the front face of these gables. As such, the recessed and pitched nature of this feature would not be visually prominent. 14. A s I observed in viewing th e site from Southbourne Coast Road and is shown on the submitted plans and sketches , the incre a se in height of the pi t ched roof within the mid - section to the new building would be visible , but would be subservient and proportional to the design and scale o f the development , and thus it would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area. I n this respect, I agree with the Inspector in the 2020 Appeal when he referred , in paragraph 24 , to of the appeal proposal being from Southbourne Coast Road. As I have found above, changed when compared to the same view of the 2023 Approval . Moreover, as the previous Inspector also alluded to that view encompasse s a character that is very varied as a result of the variation in the built form and design of existing properties on Dalmeny Road, including the flatted development to the south of the appeal site known as Ocean Point . Appeal Decision APP / V1260/W/23/3334352 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 4 15. I am also satisfied that the propose d building would remain sufficiently articulated, bearing in mind that the overall design and pallet of materials remains similar to that in the 2023 Approval. The inclusion of projecting gables, recessed sections of linked roof , roof terraces (balconies) and vertical glazing would result in a highly articulate d building that would sit comfortably on the appeal sit e . 16. Turning to policies CS 22 and CS41 of the BLP, these seek, amongst other requirement s , to ensure that new development: is of a high quality; that through its scale, density, layout, height, siting, character and appearance, development is designed to respect the site and its surro undings; provides a high standard of amenity for occupants; contribute positively to the appearance and safety of the public realm; and enhances character, local distinctiveness and amenities. For the reasons set out above, the appeal proposal would , in m y view, comply with the aims and objectives of both policies. 17. In relation to part 3 (Achieving Good Design) and part 4.1 (Replacement (September 2008 ) (Design Guide), for the same reasons given above I find that the appeal proposal would represent a high quality design that has evolved from a good understanding of the site and its context . The proposal also addresses and responds to key requirements th at the guidance highlights as important considerations when promoting replacement development, as proposed. 18. In support of the above findings it is important to emphasise that the Design Guide and BLP predate the policies in the Framework. Whilst paragrap h 135 of the Framework refers to new development being sympathetic to local character it also states that this should not prevent or discourage appropriate innovation or change. The National Design Guide (NDG) (January 2021) reinforces the Framework, for example, at paragraph 44 , by emphasising that well designed places do not need to copy their s urroundings and that it is appropriate for new development to include innovation and change to reflect how we live today. 19. P aragraph 123 of the Framework also states that planning decisions should promote the effective use of land in meeting the need for housing, reinforced by p aragraph 124 c) which states that substantial weight should be given to using suitable brownfield land within settlements for homes. Also, paragraph 129 which states that in locations where there is a need for new homes and an anticipated shortage of land to meet those needs , decisions should ensure that developments make optimal use of the potential of each site , with min imum density standard s for locations that are well served by public transport . T he se p olicies provide further support for my findings on this issue. 20. Accordingly, I find that the appeal proposal would not be out of keeping and would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area and would thus accord with the aims and objectives of polic ies CS22 and CS41 of the BLP, the guidance within the Desig n Guide and the corresponding policies of the Framework and NDG. Other Matters 21. As I confirmed earlie r, the Appellant submitted a revised UU , dated 12 March 2024 , to secure heathland mitigation contributions. Having reviewed this UU I am Appeal Decision APP / V1260/W/23/3334352 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 5 satisfied that the obligations are reasona ble and effective, and would meet the requirements of polic y CS33 of the BLP and the provisions of the DHPF. The obligation s are : necessary so as to make the appeal proposal acceptable in planning terms; they are directly related to the proposed developme nt; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. As such, all three tests in paragraph 5 7 of the Framework are met, and all three statutory tests in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 are also met. 22. I understand that, in line with the provisions of the UU, that the contribution has already been paid and that a s imilar undertaking, dated 11 April 2023, with the same obligations accompanied the 2023 Approval. Planning balance 23. The Council SOC accept s that the y cannot identify a 5 - year supply of housing land , with paragraph 2.6 indicating a supply (with 20% buffer) of 2.3 y ears. As such, p aragraph 11 d) of the Framework states that where the relevant policies of the development pl an are out of date (which footnote 8 states includes, for applications involving the provision of housing, where the local planning authority cannot identify a 5 - year supply of housing land and where, as in this case, paragraph 226 does not appear to apply ), planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole or where policies in the Framework that protect areas and assets of importance provide a clear reason for refusing permission. 24. A s I have already found , any impact on the European sites would be mitigated by the agreed heathland contribution already paid to the Council , and the appeal proposal would not resu lt in any significant adverse impacts. In relation to benefits, compared to the house and flats that the appeal site currently accommodates, the proposal would secure a small contribution to future housing provision ; there would be economic investment from the construction of the new houses ; the site is in a sustainable location ; and the proposal would make effective and optimal use of brownfield land . Combined, I accord these benefits moderate weight. 25. In the context of paragraph 11 d) of the Framework the appeal proposal would not result in any significant adverse impacts and the presumption in favour of sustainable development applies, which combined with the benefits of the scheme points towards the g rant of planning permission. Conditions 26. The Council has suggested a number of conditions which I have considered against the advice in the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) chapter on the use of planning conditions . I have also had regar d to the Appellants Final Comments , dated 20 March 2024, which raised no objections to the conditions on the basis they replicated those imposed on the 2023 Approval . 27. C ondition s requiring the development to be undertaken in accord with the approved plans and in relation to the details shown on those plans of materials, pipework, visibility splays, parking and turning areas, cycle and storage areas, bin presentation areas and fencing/boundar y treatment, are reasonable and Appeal Decision APP / V1260/W/23/3334352 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 6 necessary in order the secure a high quality development and to reflect the details shown in the application. Conditions requiring the submission and approval of on - site wor ks and demolition, ground stability, a surface wa ter scheme, a landscaping scheme and electric charging points, are also necessary and reasonable to safeguard the amenities of existing and future occupiers a s well as neighbours, in the interests of highway safety, to promote sustainable transport, to ens ure the development is satisfactorily drained , to secure a high quality development and to protect visual amenities. 28. I am satisfied that condition s requiring compliance with the mitigation and enhance ment measures set out in the submitted ecological report and to restrict site clearance during the bird breeding season, are necessary to safeguard and protect biodiversity and ecological interests. Conditions requiring the use of obscure glazing and non - opena ble windows below a certain height within part s of the development are also reasonable and necessary to avoid overlooking and to protect the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. 29. Whilst the PPG advises that permitted development rights should on ly be taken away in exceptional circumstances, I am satisfied that those circumstances exist here . As such, condition s to prevent new extensions , alterations and outbuildings , to control the use of internal garages and to prevent development within the pr oposed visibility splays, are necessary and reasonable in order to protect the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers , to retain control over the development and in the interests of highway safety. Conclusion 30. For the reasons given above and having taken all the matters raised into account I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. G Roberts INSPECTOR Annex - Conditions 1) The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission . 2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans : 2019 - 11 - 31 ; 2019 - 11 - 1 2 ; 2019 - 11 - 33 ; 2019 - 11 - 34 ; 2019 - 11 - 35 ; 2019 - 11 - 36 ; 2019 - 11 - 37 ; 2019 - 11 - 38 . 3) All on - site working, including demolition and deliveries to and from the site, associated with the implementation of this planning permission , shall only be carried out between the hours of 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. and 1 p.m. Saturday and not at all on Sunday, Public and Bank Holidays unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. 4) No site clearance or development work shall commence until there has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority a Method Statement that includes the following measures: Appeal Decision APP / V1260/W/23/3334352 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 7 a) parking arrangements for operatives and construction vehicles working on - site; b) noise reduction measures including times of piling operations; and the c) details and siting of equipment, machinery and surplus materials on the site. The parking arrangements for operatives and construction vehicles shall be implemented prior to development commencing and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. 5) The materials to be used on the external surfaces of the proposed development shall be as specified on plan reference 2019 - 11 - 36 u nless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 6) No development shall take place until the applicant or their successors in title have submitted a ground stabil ity geotechnical impact report that identifies the ground conditions in the context of the coastal zone, the impact of the development on ground stability and relevant mitigation measures including a construction methodology statement submitted to the sati sfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be implemented in accordance with the approved mitigation measures unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 7) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 2015 (or any o rder revoking and re - enacting that Order with or without modification), no enlargements of the dwellings including, rear, side, porch extensions, roof dormers or outbuildings or new windows or rooflights at first floor level or boundary screening other than as approved shall be constructed without the grant of a further specific planning permission from the Local Planning Authority. 8) The proposed lower panes of the second floor window s in the rear north east elevation and the first floor window in the north west side elevation of the approve d building shall be glazed with obscure glass to a level equivalent to Pilkington Level 3 or above (or the nearest equivalent standard) and fixed s hut as shown on the approved plans and shall be permanently retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 9) T he proposed rooflights in the rear roof plane serving the second floor lounges shall be of high level type (m inimum 1.75m internal sill height above finished internal floor level of the associated spaces they serve) and shall be permanently retained as such unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 10) The development shall not be occupied until details of a scheme for the collection of surface water utilising an attenuation tank and control of water outflow via a discharge flow regulator have been submitted to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with Wessex Water . Connection to the off - site network shall only take place with the consent of Wessex Water and the facility shall operate strictly in accordance with the approved details being implemented prior to occupation unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority together with Wessex Water. The facility shall be retained and maintained for the lifetime of the development hereby approved. Appeal Decision APP / V1260/W/23/3334352 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 8 11) Unless shown on the approved elevational drawings , any pipework (with the exception of rainwater down pipes) shall be i nternal to the building. 12) Before the occupation of any part of the development hereby approved, the cycle storage facilities within the approved garages to each house shall be provided as shown on the approved plans and thereafter retained, maintained and kept available for the occupants of the development at all times. 13) Notwithstanding details shown on the submitted plans, within 3 months of the date of commencement of the development, details of the provision of electric vehicle charging po ints shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval in writing. The proposed charging points shall be installed in accordance with the approved details prior to first occupation and permanently retained and maintained for the residents of the development hereby permitted at all times. 14) Before the development hereby permitted is brought into use and notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any order revoking and re - enacting that Or der with or without modifications) the visibility splay(s) shown on the approved plans shall be cleared of all obstructions over 0.6m above the level of the adjoining highway, including the reduction in level of the land if necessary. Nothing over that hei ght shall be permitted to remain, be placed, built, planted or grown on the land so designated. 15) P rior to the occupation of the development hereby approved, the access and areas for turning parking including the marking out of spaces garaging shown on the approved plan shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details and permanently retained and kept available for the residents and visitors of the development hereby permitted at all times. 16) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 2015 (or any o rder revoking and re - enacting that Order with or without modification), the garage facilities to each dwellinghouse shall not be converted to habitable accommodation and shall be retained for the parking of a vehicle, cycle storage facilities and electric vehicle charging point as shown on th e approved plans unless otherwise fo rmally agreed by the Local Planning Authority. 17) Within three months of the date of commencement of the development, un less otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, a scheme of landscaping which shall include details of all existing trees and hedgerows on the land, and detail s of any to be retained shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details of: a) the positions, species and sizes of all existing trees, shrubs and hedges to be retained; b) the positions, species, initial sizes and planting densities of all new trees and/or shrubs; c) any hard landscaping proposed including details of materials; d) the programme of implementation of the scheme; e) schedule of 5 year maintenance Appeal Decision APP / V1260/W/23/3334352 https://www.gov.uk/planning - inspectorate 9 The approved landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with those details and permanently retained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 18) Prior to the occupation of the development hereby approved fences/boundary screens shall be erected in the position(s) shown on the approved plans of the type and dimensions specified. The fences/boundary screens shall be thereafter retained unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. 19) The bin presentation area as shown on plan reference 2019 - 11 - 38 for plots 2, 3 and 4 shall be marked out utilising a contrasting surfacing material/block paviours and shall be constructed in accordance with the approved details prior to the occupation of the proposed development and shall be retained and maintained for that use thereafter. Bins shall be removed from the collection area(s) following the collection of waste and returned to the individual storage areas. No bins shall be returned to the collection point until the day of the next collection. 20) The mitigation and enhancement measures including for bats identified within t he Ecological Appraisal Report dated 21 November 2022 and prepared by Sophie Smith of Cherry Tree Ecology Ltd shall be implemented in full and in a ccordance with the approved timetable and maintained and supervised until completion of the development and thereafter retained and maintained where applicable. 21) No vegetation clea rance on the development site shall be undertaken within the bird breeding season of 01 March to 31 August inclusive unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of a qualified ecologist that nesting birds are not present to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. End of Annex .⚖️ Inspector's Reasoning — why the refusal was overturned
28. I am satisfied that condition s requiring compliance with the mitigation and enhance ment measures set out in the submitted ecological report and to restrict site clearance during the bird breeding season, are necessary to safeguard and protect biodiversity and ecological interests. Conditions requiring the use of obscure glazing and non - opena ble windows below a certain height within part s of the development are also reasonable and necessary to avoid overlooking and to protect the living conditions of the neighbouring occupiers. 29. Whilst the PPG advises that permitted development rights should on ly be taken away in exceptional circumstances, I am satisfied that those circumstances exist here . As such, condition s to prevent new extensions , alterations and outbuildings , to control the use of internal garages and to prevent development within the pr oposed visibility splays, are necessary and reasonable in order to protect the living Conclusion 30. For the reasons given above and having taken all the matters raised into account I conclude that the appeal should be allowed. G Roberts
⚖️ 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.